Truth Magazine

By Don Partain

Some contend that the guilty put-away fornicator can remarry and still be right with God. How do they arrive at this conclusion? They argue that in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 Jesus is simply explaining and clarifying Moses’ instruction in Deuteronomy 24:1. But is this the actual case?

In Matthew 5, at times Jesus contrasts his teaching with Jewish tradition that distorted and misapplied the Law  for example, in verses 38-42. “Eye for eye and tooth for tooth” (Lev.24:20) meant that civil punishment was to fit the crime. But the Jews misapplied this to justify personal vengeance. So, Jesus clarified the Law on this issue  but did so especially to teach a principle of his imminent kingdom: namely, that his disciples must not return evil for evil, but instead overcome evil with good (Rom.12:17-21).

In the same way, in Matthew 5:31 32, Jesus is teaching a truth of his kingdom. However, here, instead of contrasting his teaching with Jewish tradition, he is contrasting it with the Law of Moses itself  specifically. “And it was said, `Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of dismissal’; but I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery” (Deut. 24:1). In the parallel passage (19:7-9), Jesus contrasts his teaching with what “Moses permitted” (again, not with Jewish tradition). Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts, had granted the Israelites a concession  husbands could divorce their wives for some cause short of fornication. But Jesus was reinstating God’s original purpose and allowed one to divorce and remarry only if the spouse was guilty of fornication. So, clearly, Jesus was not clarifying Moses and the Law in Matthew 5:32; 19:9. Rather, he was opposing and contrasting what the Law of Moses permitted with his own teaching, the teaching of the new covenant.

In fact, the disciples’ reaction to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 provides further evidence that this was indeed the case: “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry” (v.10). In other words, what Jesus teaches here is much stricter than what they were used to under the Law of Moses.

So, what did the Law of Moses teach about divorce and remarriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4? The teaching is in an “if . . . then” form. Verses 1-3 state the protasis or condition (the “if ” section), while verse 4 states the apodosis or conclusion (the “then” section). Viewing the passage in this way, we can readily see that Moses’ teaching is aimed at making a husband stop and think before deciding to put away his wife, because (as the conclusion states) once he has divorced her and she has become another man’s wife, he can never marry her again  even if the second husband dies. The “writing of divorcement” (or certificate of dismissal) was a legal document that formalized not only the wife’s release so that she might marry another man but also the first husband’s inability to ever marry her again. So, Moses’ teaching was especially directed towards protecting the wife, not towards giving the husband an easy out.

Moses permitted a husband to divorce his wife if she had lost “favor in his eyes because he (had) found some indecency (erwat dabar  “unclean thing”) in her.” What is this indecency (uncleanness, KJV)? The Hebrew word (basic form, ervah) is used elsewhere to refer either to human seminal emissions and excrement (Deut. 23:10-14) or to “nakedness” (exposure of the genitals; Exod. 20:26). Some have contended that nakedness refers to sexual intercourse, therefore to fornication in Deuteronomy 24:1. So, they argue that Jesus was only restating the Law of Moses in Matthew 5:32. However, nakedness, by itself, does not refer to sexual intercourse, but only to exposure of one’s private parts. They have confused “nakedness” with “uncovering nakedness,” which does indeed refer to fornication (Lev. 18:6f.; Ezek. 16:36). But Moses, in Deuteronomy 24:1, does not speak of uncovering nakedness  only of nakedness. Therefore, Moses was not speaking of fornication being the grounds for divorce.

It is further evident that uncleanness (or nakedness) was! not fornication since fornication was punishable by death. (Deut. 22:22), despite any exceptions to this rule (as in they case with David and Bathsheba). So, divorce, when a partner had been guilty of adultery (a form of fornication), was a moot point!

In fact, uncleanness does not even include suspicions of fornication. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and Numbers 5:11-31 describe the procedures to be used when a husband suspected his wife had been unfaithful to him. In neither case does divorce result.

So, what did uncleanness mean? It referred to something the husband found to be indecent, immodest, shameful, or unseemly in his wife  yet, short of fornication. Thus, Matthew 5:32, which gives fornication as the only allow-able cause for divorce and remarriage, does not clarify Deuteronomy 24:1, but instead, contrasts with it.

“But,” some argue, “even under the Old Law when one divorced for the cause of uncleanness, adultery resulted when either partner remarried, since Deuteronomy 24:4 says the woman was “defiled.” They connect this with Numbers 5:13, where a wife guilty of adultery is described as “defiled.” However, take a closer look at Deuteronomy 24:4. In what situation is the women here “defiled”? Is it when she marries her second husband? No. She is not in an adulterous relationship in this second marriage. If such were the case, this would have been an “abomination before the Lord”  something that would have brought “sin on the land” and therefore something strictly forbidden by the Lord (see vs.4). But, again, these things are not said about the woman’s second marriage. So, in what situation would the woman be “defiled” and cause an abomination before the Lord? If she remarried her first husband. In other words, she is de-filed in relation to her first husband, so that, if she remarries him  regardless of the circumstances  she brings sin on the land.

Therefore, to divorce for the cause of uncleanness and then remarry was not committing adultery as some have contended. In fact, such a possibility should never have been entertained in the first place! Would our holy God, in the same breath even, both permit and condemn as adulterous certain marriages? To ask this is to answer it. Here in Montana, you can apply for permits to shoot cow elk in certain districts. Imagine the situation in which one has obtained such a permit and then successfully filled his tag. A game warden then approaches. “Nice shot! I’m sure you’ll get plenty of meat from this animal. However, even though you have a permit, I am going to have to arrest you for poaching! Please come with me.”

In the beginning, God’s revealed purpose for marriage was to join one man to one woman for life. But because of hardness of men’s hearts  and until the fulness of grace and truth should be revealed in Christ Jesus  God fitted Israelite men to divorce their wives if they were guilty of some form of indecency or shamefulness. Then when Jesus came to earth in the “fulness of time,” teaching the principles of his kingdom, he reinstated God’s original purpose, yet allowed one to divorce and remarry if his spouse had committed fornication.

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 
February 1, 1996

By Joe R. Price

In the last year of Jesus’ life during the Feast of Dedication (present-day Hanukkah), unbelieving individuals confronted him and demanded of him a plain declaration that he was the Christ (John 10:22-24). Like ravenous wolves the Jewish rulers had encircled him, ready to pounce upon their prey (v. 24).

The Context

Jesus was surrounded by unbelievers. They had seen his miraculous works and their results (i.e., the healing of the man ill for 38 years, John 5:2-18; sight restored to the man born blind, John 9:1-34), but still they did not believe on him. His works and his words had provided ample proof of his claims (John 5:36; 10:25). A further demonstration of his power would no doubt be casting pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6). They had made up their minds. They were looking for a reason to put Jesus to death.

His Sheep

Their failure to believe in Christ made it clear that they were not his sheep (John 10:26). They were not his disciples. Jesus made a contrast between his sheep and the unbelieving Jewish leaders in John 10:27-28. By so doing, he specifically stated the blessings of being his sheep. His sheep hear the voice of Christ (consequently, he knows them, John 10:14). They follow the words of Christ (consequently, he gives them eternal life, John 10:10). As a result, they shall never perish (no one shall snatch them out of the hand of Christ).

Jesus taught that human salvation rests upon the pillars of man’s faith and God’s grace (John 10:27-29; Eph. 2:8-9). Jesus rejected the Calvinistic doctrines of unconditional election and the perseverance of the saints. If the conditions of verse 27 are not obeyed, the blessings of verses 28-29 will not follow. As one hears and obeys the voice of Christ (the gospel) he receives the security of his soul that the Son and the Father provide. The Jewish rulers did not hear his voice nor did they follow him. Therefore, they did not have any true confidence of salvation. Because of their unbelief, Jesus implied that they would die in their sins (cf. John 8:23-24).

“I And The Father Are One”

Jesus claimed to possess the same power as the Father when he claim power to give eternal life and to protect his sheep from danger (vv. 28-29). This mutual protective power illustrated his unity with the Father. As Lenski observes, “To snatch them out his hand is the same as snatching them out of the Father’s hand.” So, what his enemies were pressing him for they now receive. Jesus uttered a clear and decisive statement of his divine nature by affirming, “I and the Father are one.” His works proceeded out of the Father and testified of his unity with the Father’s purposes and power (John 10:32; cf. 8:42).

To claim the same power as the, Father was to claim oneness with the Father (John 10:29-30). The Jews immediately saw such a claim as blasphemous and tried to stone Jesus (John 10:31). They did not misunderstand what Jesus said. They simply did not believe him. They knew Jesus was “making himself God” (John 10:33).

Jesus declared for himself equality (sameness) with God (cf. John 5:17-18). They considered his words to be blasphemous because they had rejected the evidence  his works  which proved him to be divine. They thought he was just a man. So, they charged him with blasphemy and considered him worthy of death (John 10:33). Think of it! A man making himself God (v. 33)! Yet, the very works he did showed his declaration to be true (John 10:32; 5:36; 10:25, 38). Jesus is more than just a man. He is also God (John 1:1-3, 14). Had they believed his works, they would have readily received his words (John 10:37-38).

“Ye Are Gods”

The Jews were completely intolerant of Jesus’ claim of Godhood. Jesus continued his defense by exposing their inconsistency through an appeal to the authority of Scripture. “Is it not writ-ten in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:34-36).

The Jews accepted the statement from their own law that described God’s appointed judges among his people as “gods” (Psa. 82:6). Jesus reminds his opponents of this (it is significant to note that he says the book of Psalms belonged to their “law” (cf. Rom. 3:19, 10-18). Jesus stated what his Jewish opponents conceded. Namely, that it stood written in the law (i.e., it was firmly established by the binding nature of God’s law) that God said of men, “Ye are gods” (John 10:34-35).

Then, Jesus affirmed the authoritative force of Scripture by saying, “The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Inspired scripture cannot be deprived of its binding authority by the whims of men. All individuals are obligated to harmonize their beliefs and practices to the authority of God’s writings (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 14:37; Col. 3:17).

Not only did the Jews reject the evidence of Jesus’ works, in their charge of blasphemy they also failed to respect the authority of Scripture. In Psalms 82:6, the judges of Israel were called “gods” because of their representative position of authority and responsibility among the people. These judges were God’s representatives, charged with executing fair and impartial judgments in Israel (82:2-4). To go before the judges was to go before God (cf. Exod. 21:6; 22:8-9, 28), for they were charged with rendering God’s judgments (Deut. 1:16-17). The 82nd Psalm depicts God rebuking these “gods” (the unjust judges) for their corruption of justice. Because they failed to judge righteously, God would now judge them (82:1, 7-8). Even so, because of their God-given position of power, the psalmist called the unrighteous judges “gods.” (Please note, these “gods” are on the earth judging among the poor, fatherless and needy, vv. 2-4. God’s judgment would be executed on “the earth,” v. 8. The Mormon explanation that this passage proves their doctrine of many gods is without contextual support, cf. 1 Cor. 8:4-6.)

The Jews had never considered the statement from Psalms 82:6 as blasphemous, even though it depicts unrighteous men as “gods.” Yet they were charging Jesus (whose words and works showed that he was approved by God) with blasphemy because he said, “I am the Son of God” (10:36). That which had been written in their law must be accepted by them as authoritative (“the scripture cannot be broken”). Butler observes, “How then could the Jews have the right to accuse Jesus of blasphemy when He says, `I am the Son of God …’ especially since all of His miraculous works indicate that He has been sanctified and sent into the world by the Father” (Paul Butler, The Gospel of John 127). The Jews were not being consistent in their reasoning. Since God’s law called unrighteous men “gods” because they had been sent by God to execute his judgments in Israel, the righteous Jesus was not blaspheming when he identified himself as one with the Father. Jesus argues from the lesser to the greater here. The Father had set him apart and sent him into the world with a far greater work than the judges of Israel received. Jesus’ works proved he was from the Father. He was righteous in every way. Truly, he is the Son of God (John 10:36).

Conclusion

“I and the Father are one” is equivalent to saying “I am the Son of God” (v. 30, 36). This was a clear declaration of deity by Jesus and the Jews took it as such (v. 33). Only in a representative sense have men ever been called “gods.” However, one has lived among us who was more than just man. Jesus was God in the flesh (John 1:14; Col. 2:9). His works confirm it. His words attest to it. He has power to save and to protect your soul. Do you believe it? Are you his sheep?

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 6-7
February 1, 1996

By Connie W. Adams

When Satan tempted Jesus to make stones into bread, Jesus responded by saying, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). This was a reference to the incident recorded in Deuteronomy 8 when God gave the Israelites manna in the wilderness. He gave specific instructions as to how much to gather for a day’s supply. Any more than that would breed worms and stink and they could not use it. They were to look beyond the actual manna to the source of their very existence. God was their provider and they were answerable to him. So it is in all human relations. The God who made the world and who made us has the right to command, to direct, and to enforce obedience. He also has the right to enact punishment upon the disobedient.

Order in the Family

Concerning the family Jesus said, “Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4-6). Marriage was created by God, even as he created the universe and set in motion the laws by which it is ordered. As God made man and determined the bounds of his habitation, even so God made marriage and set in motion the laws by which it functions. Notice that “at the beginning” he made them male and female. That denies evolution, even the theistic brand. Both male and female were distinctly formed by God and that was done “at the beginning.”

Notice further that in marriage male and female become one. There is a perfect and intimate union of mind, soul, and body. They function not as adversaries, or competitors, but with one heart and soul. This union is a divine creation and it is just as damaging to disregard that as it is to reject God’s authority in the natural creation. For man to “put asunder” what “God hath joined together” is to invite great harm upon this relationship. The balance of moral behavior is poised upon the permanence and stability of God’s divine order for the family. To “put asunder” what God has joined together is to tear down the basic unit of all orderly human society. No wonder such violation of divine authority results in broken hearts, devastated children, rebellious behavior, hatred, and every evil work. Malice, bitterness, jealousy, envy, hatred, lying, cheating, stealing, and murder often follow in the wake of man’s presumption in tearing apart what God joined together.

There is something else here worthy of note and that is that marriage is more than a social or civil ceremony. While the customs and laws of man require certain things which validate a marriage in any given culture (and devout people ought to respect such things), it is God who creates the bond. Only divinely expressed authority can sever that. Death severs this bond (Rom. 7:1-3). In the context of the passage we are considering (Matt. 19), Jesus taught that fornication grants the injured party the right to put away the guilty (v. 9). But while we debate the exception, let it not be forgotten that there is a rule here. It is simply that God created marriage. He establishes the bond and man is not to put it asunder. Any violation of what he taught about it flaunts divine authority. That cannot be done without a price to pay.

Order in Civil Government

The same divine power that created the universe, made man in his image, designed the family and fashioned the laws by which each of these is ordered, designed civil government for the good of mankind. “Let every soul be subject to the higher power, for there is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God” (Rom. 13:1). Without specifying any one form of civil rule over another, God still ordained “the powers that be.” By di-vine authority they function. Peter clearly stated the design of civil government. “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well” (1 Pet. 2:13-14).

It is the duty of civil rulers to “punish the evil doers.” Lawbreakers, the rebellious, those who do not respect the rule of law, are not to be tolerated. They are to be punished. In every dispensation this principle is revealed. In Genesis 9:6 God said, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” It is this same principle revealed in the law of Moses which contained over 30 instances in which capital punishment was to be inflicted. Ezra spelled out the demand for punishment upon the law-breakers, showing the punishment suited to the seriousness of the crime. “And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment” (Ezra 7:26). Note that whatever punishment was to be ad-ministered to suit the nature of the crime, it was to be done “speedily” (KJV, NKJV). The New American Standard Version reads “strictly.” There was to be no dalliance. The offender was not to “get off.” The punishment was exact, determined beforehand according to the offense and it was to be executed with speed. Solomon added that failure to carry out sentence against an evil work “speedily” would cause the hearts of men to be set on evil (Eccl. 8:11). Is strict punishment a deterrent to crime? The Lord thought so and revealed it through inspired men. The whole de-bate on this issue now springs from a lack of respect for the divine authority of the Almighty.

In the New Testament, Paul said the civil ruler is “the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4). The civil ruler has a “sword,” a weapon of force. Who gave it to him? By what right does he use it? “He is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath on him that doeth evil.” Civil law exercised without prompt and certain punishment for those who violate that law, opens the door to anarchy. When policemen are stripped of power, when the system is rigged in favor of the criminal and his “rights” transcend those of his victims, then justice is perverted and an escalation in crime is inevitable. When cases are decided without regard to the evidence and verdicts are based on emotion in spite of clear evidence, then the rule of law has suffered a serious blow.

Peter said the rulers are also to “praise those who do well.” The rights and safety of those who are submissive to law must be secured by rulers. The greatest asset which law enforcement has is the presence of God-fearing, law-abiding citizens who are not only concerned with their “rights” but the “rights” of others as well. People who pay their debts, go to work on time, work hard, and observe the laws (whether the speed limit, the requirement for hunting or fishing licenses), rear decent and honorable children, and who practice the Golden Rule are benefactors to the powers that be. They ought to be encouraged in right doing. Any time laws are slanted to punish people for doing right, then God’s will is not done. When married people are taxed at a higher rate than those who simply “live together” then evil is encouraged and those who do well are disadvantaged. Instead of mocking and working to punish those who live by the law, not just out of fear of punishment, but because they believe this to be the will of God, civil rulers ought to protect and praise those who do well, as Peter said. Something surely is out of whack in these times! What is the real problem? It is disrespect for God who authorized civil government. (More to Come)

Guardian of Truth XL: 2 p. 3-4
January 18, 1996