Truth Magazine

By Donnie V. Rader

A clear and simple understanding of what the Bible says on divorce and remarriage is greatly needed. We are seeing more and more divorces. It is not an uncommon thing for there to be divorces in the family and in the church. We have people wanting to be baptized or place membership who are divorced and remarried. Some questions have to be answered. Is their marriage scriptural? If not, must they separate or can they continue in that relationship? Thus, we need to know what the text says.

Divorce and remarriage is a simple subject that has been made complex. What the Bible says on this subject is just as simple as what it says on baptism. Matthew 19:9 is just as clear and simple as Mark 16:16. Yet, both subjects become complex because of the human emotion and situations that cry out for a favorable answer from the word. In-depth studies on both subjects have become necessary when men pervert the simple text.

In this study we want to focus on Matthew 19:9. It is the first verse that comes to mind when we think about divorce and remarriage. This verse bears the burden of the study. John Murray said that Matthew 19:9 is “the most pivotal passage in the New Testament on divorce.” Martin Luther said, “Matthew 19:9 is a blunt, clear, plain text.”

Matthew 19:9 says:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away cloth commit adultery.

What The Text Says

About Divorce

A. Other texts on divorce state the blanket rule: divorce for any cause is wrong. God has always hated divorce (Mal. 2:16). When Jesus was asked, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matt. 19:3), he responded by giving four reasons why the answer is no. (1) God made one man for one woman (v. 5), (2) A man is to cleave to his wife (v. 5), (3) The man and his wife are one flesh (v. 5), (4) God has joined them together (v. 6).

When answering a question sent by the Corinthians Paul stated that those who are married must continue in their marriage. Four times he affirms that they are not to divorce (1 Cor. 7:10-13). The parallel texts to Matthew 19:9 do not give an exception to the rule (Mark 10:11-12; Lukel6:18).

B. Only two texts mention an exception to the blanket rule. Those pas-sages are Matthew 5:32 (“saving for the cause of fornication”) and Matthew19:9 (“except it be for fornication”). The exception is when the divorce is for fornication.

C. Conclusion: there is one, and only one, scriptural cause for divorce  fornication. It is the only one authorized. This is true whether the person intends to remarry or not. Now, that’s simple! Anybody can see that.

What The Text Says

About Remarriage

A. Jesus makes a distinction in one who puts away and one who is put away. Some today tell us that it really doesn’t make any difference. The only difference that I know it makes is that Jesus made a difference. Look at the text: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry an-other, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

Notice that Jesus makes a distinction between the one who puts away and the one who is put away. Now, that’s simple!

B. There are two parts to Matthew 19:9. Part A discusses the one who puts away. Part B discusses the one who is put away.

I learn two things from part A of our text. (1) One who puts away his mate (for a cause other than fornication) commits adultery when he remarries. (2) One who puts away his mate (for fornication) does not commit adultery when he remarries. Part B tells us that when the one who is put away remarries he commits adultery. There is no exception phrase found in part B of our text. It doesn’t fit there either textually or grammatically. Thus, this includes the one put away for fornication as well as the one put away for a cause other than fornication.

C. Conclusion: The only one who has a right to remarry is the one who puts away his mate for fornication. To know whether a particular person in a divorce has a right to remarry, simply find where he fits in the text. If the person in question put away his mate, he fits part A of the text. Now did he put her away for fornication? If so, he has a right to remarry. If not, he does not have that right. If that person is the one who was put away by his mate, he fits part B of the text. He does not have a right to remarry. Now, that’s simple.

The Order of the Text

There is an order that is implied in Matthew 19:9. The text says that a man may put away his wife for fornication and marry another. If he puts her away for fornication that tells us that the fornication must precede the divorce. Thus, the order is: (1) Fornication, (2) Divorce and (3) Re-marriage. It is not (1) Divorce for any cause, (2) Mate commits adultery, and then (3) Remarriage is justified.

The order of Matthew 19:9 is just as important as the order of Mark 16:16. (1) Believe, (2) Baptized and (3) Saved. It is not, (1) Believe, (2) Saved, and (3) Baptized. We cannot reverse God’s order.

Now, that’s simple!

We Must Have Bible Authority

A.We must abide within the authority of the Bible. We must do all things in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). To go beyond the doctrine of Christ means that we are out of fellowship with God (2 John. 9). The principle of Bible authority applies to the issue of divorce and remarriage just like it does to the work and worship of the church. If we affirm that someone has a right to re-many we must have Bible authority for what we say (1 Pet. 4:11).

B. Respecting Bible authority means that we respect the silence of the Scriptures. The silence of God is not permission to act. Rather the silence of God is prohibitive. Since our Lord was from a tribe of which Moses spake nothing concerning being a priest on earth, Jesus was not permitted to be a priest on earth (Heb. 7:14).

To illustrate, God was silent about instrumental music. That silence does not give us permission to have it, but his silence would prohibit it. God was silent about using grape jelly on the Lord’s table. Does that give us per-mission to use it?

Let us not be found seeking justification for some remarriage on the basis of the silence of the Scriptures. Now folks, that’s simple.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 3 p. 10-11
February 6, 1997

By Steve Wallace

The effort which began in the Spring of this year (1996) has continued through to this present time with various men coming to carry on the work of teaching the gospel in this city. This writer was there from 22 October until 11 November. Tom Bunting, who came with his wife, Shirley, preceded me in the work there, while Doug Hill and Josh Gurtler, who both came in late summer, were my co-workers. Doug returned to the U.S. on 15 November. Josh plans to stay until 23 December. Bill Bynum is presently there for three weeks working with Josh.

Street Work

As is our custom, we continued our practice of setting up a table full of literature in the Lithuanian language on the main pedestrian street in Kaunas, Laisves Aleja. We were blessed with good weather generally and interest at the table was good. There were a number of discussions with people from varying religious or non-religious backgrounds. With Tom and Shirley in Kaunas, Doug and Josh took the opportunity to work the streets in Vilnius for a few weeks. The reaction there was extremely good with people swarming the table. Both men were excited about the number of people who took literature.

Lectures

The attendance at the Sunday lectures grew to a high of about fourteen with six to seven of these being non-Christians. In Kaunas we advertised the subjects, time, and place of the lectures in the city paper and handed out invitations to people who passed by the table in both cities. The lectures in Vilnius had a high of 23 people in attendance. It is encouraging to report that Kestutis Subacus, a native Lithuanian, preached many of the lectures himself. In Kaunas we made overhead charts of our lessons for the lectures which were also copied and handed out to all who came.

Studies

In the past, most of the conversions have come from people coming to the lectures and we have had a difficult time getting private studies with people. This changed radically in both places with studies resulting from both the street work and the lectures. In my time working in Lithuania this was the busiest in terms of private studies. There were two baptized in Vilnius and we have hopes that others with whom we are presently studying will follow. If my count is correct, we have baptized eleven so far this year. While three did not stick, the others have shown very encouraging signs of growth.

The Churches in Kaunas and Vilnius

As is always the case, all the workers involved in the work in these two cities have also worked with the churches in each place. We are continually encouraged by the growth we see in our brethren there. In order to further this we have started setting up Bible studies with individuals or groups of individuals within the church in Kaunas. We have already seen good come from this.

Other Work

In my last report I mentioned a number of books/booklets that we have been working on. At this point Denominationalism and The Church by Larry Ray Hafley and The New Testament Church by Roy Cogdill are almost ready to go to print. Long hours have been spent proof reading Glossalalia, by Jimmy Jividen, with more work yet to be done on it. I drove in with my car loaded down (it bottomed out numerous times) with 386 and 286 computers which were donated by various brethren. These computers have now been set up to work with Lithuanian characters and have been assigned to various translators, both Christians and non-Christians. This will make our job of getting things into final print form much easier.

Can You Come to Lithuania in 1997?

Beginning in January 1997, a further effort to spread the gospel is being planned for Kaunas and, perhaps, other parts of Lithuania. It is planned to continue the whole year. Tracts and lecture halls are available. A number of churches in the U.S. and Germany have shown themselves willing to sup-port these efforts. Workers are needed. Can you come for a few weeks? Everyone who has worked in Kaunas believes in the need for further work to be done there and has found the work something they were able to do. We are seeing the fruits of labors in the number of converts and growth in brethren there. Please contact me for further information about working there.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 3 p. 12-13
February 6, 1997

By Norman Midgette

No, we are not talking about the National Organization of Women, but about 2 Corinthians 6:1, 2. Paul wrote, “And working together with him we entreat also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain (for he saith, At an acceptable time I harkened unto thee, and in a day of salvation did I succor thee: behold, now is the acceptable time; behold now is the day of salvation)… “

This quote is from Isaiah 49:8 and the context shows this to be the message. A time, acceptable to God, would come when the Gentiles would be brought into the fold and there would be, “. . . salvation unto the end of the earth” (Isa. 49:6). At that acceptable time and day of salvation God promised to do five things. That time, Paul says, is now. So what are these five promises of God in Isaiah 49?

God would give help to his people (49:8). And do we need it! There is not a thing we can do about our guilt and sin but live with them unless God will help us. That is what he promises here and now. If we are in Christ, we have this help.

God will preserve his people (49:8). No one will be able to snatch us out of his hand if we want to stay there (John 10:28). Security is so important to peace of mind and contentment. We need it and with God we have it.

God will feed us and remove our hunger and thirst (49:9, 10). We are filled when we have Christ for he is the fulness of God and we are complete in him (Col. 2:8-10). According to verse 12, we enter Christ by baptism.

God will lead us and guide us (49:10, 11). Sounds like the good shepherd to me. Psalm 23 comes to mind and the little wayward lamb in the arms of the Savior paints a graphic picture (Matt. 18.12). The Bible contains it all (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet.1:3; Jude 3). God promises to lead us and show us the way and has done that through the Bible.

Finally he will comfort and have compassion on us (49:13). After a hard day, the comfort of home and family is so important and helpful. After a hard life battling evil and sin, the rest and comfort of a home and family in heaven will be wonderful (Heb. 4:1-11). But, that comfort and compassion begins now. That is what God is saying in 2 Corinthians 6:2. Now is the day of salvation when this can begin for you.

But, you know what the problem is? People want to wait. They want a better day or time. They think up every excuse under the sun to keep from coming to God, now. Why? Just give credit where credit is due: it is the Devil.

God says now is the day, now is the time, now is the moment. Seize it! Make it your time. If you have been saying, “later,” stop it! Repent and be baptized for the re-mission of your sins today (Acts 2:38). There was a time when you could not. What a privilege to live at a time now when you can.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 2 p. 15
January 16, 1997

By Mike Willis

From the time that my mother taught the book of Acts to the children’s class at church, I have been impressed with the Apostle Paul. I can distinctly remember how close to tears I came when I learned that he was beheaded by Nero. Most of us have been impressed by the life and work of this godly man.

However, Paul’s life was not without his critics. Had we lived in Paul’s time, some of us might not have appreciated him so much as we appreciate him today. Wherever he preached, trouble and confusion followed close behind. Paul was right in the middle of the conflict that occurred in the church over whether or not Gentiles should be compelled to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved (Acts 15; Gal. 2). When the church at Corinth had trouble, Paul was right in the middle of it, writing letters and making visits to correct the problems there (1-2 Corinthians). A riot broke out in Ephesus because he was converting so many people to Christ that the local merchants thought their business of making images to Diana would be destroyed (Acts 19). Indeed, Paul was a controversial per-son in his day. We may honor his name today, but some among us would not welcome such a man into the pulpit of our local church.

Criticisms Against Paul

Paul established the church in Corinth and worked with it for eighteen months (Acts 18:11). When trouble came to the church while he was preaching in Ephesus, he wrote 1 Corinthians to address the problems there. Sometime during his stay in Ephesus, he made a trip to Corinth to help solve their problems (2 Cor. 12:14; 13:1). After this second trip, men began working in Corinth to destroy Paul’s reputation. Second Corinthians records much of this conflict. Here are some of the criticisms that were made about Paul’s work:

1. He is fickle. This charge is implied in the statement in 2 Corinthians 1:17  “When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me here should be yea yea, and nay nay?” Because Paul changed his plans about when he would come to Corinth, those who were trying to undermine his work charged him with fickleness, attributing motives for changing his plans that were untrue. He changed his plans to “spare them” (2 Cor. 1:23) and to avoid a second visit that would be painful and full of sorrow (2 Cor. 2:1-4).

2. His bodily presence is weak. Many of us admire men with a personal charisma that draws others to them. But this was not Paul’s character. His “Charges Against Paul” continued from page 2 bodily presence was weak. His critics said he was “base” and “weak” when present (2 Cor. 10:1; 13:1).

3. He writes terrifying letters. In contrast to his bodily presence, Paul’s letters were “bold” (2 Cor. 10:1). They charged that he “terrified” them with his letters, “for his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible” (2 Cor. 10:10).

4. He is not a good speaker. Some found Paul’s pulpit preaching lacking. They said that “his speech is contemptible” (2 Cor. 10:10) and that “he is rude in speech” (2 Cor. 13:6). Apparently, Paul’s opponents were not impressed by his pulpit delivery and used that to undermine his work at Corinth.

5. He doesn’t accept support. One of the things that Paul was criticized for at Corinth was his refusal to accept sup-port from the church at Corinth. Paul was not against preachers being supported from the church treasury, for he had argued for this right in 1 Corinthians 9:1-15. While he labored in Corinth, he supported himself by tent making (see Acts 18:3) and received financial support from other churches on sporadic occasions (2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15-16). Instead of appreciating Paul’s sacrificing so that the gospel might be preached among them, the Corinthians condemned Paul for not taking support from them. The exact nature of this criticism is not known. Some think that it came because itinerant philosophers were usually supported by their disciples. Others think that Paul’s refusal of support from Corinth was interpreted as an indication that Paul thought himself lesser than the Jerusalem apostles. However, it was interpreted, there can be no doubt that he was criticized for not taking their support (2 Cot 11:7-9; 12:13-15; etc.).

6 He used others to take money from the Corinthians. When his opponents could not criticize Paul for taking money, they charged that the funds raised by Titus for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem was really Paul’s craftiness in deceitfully taking the Corinthians’ money for himself (2 Cot 13:16).

7. Paul is beside himself. Some appear to have made the charge that Paul was so caught up in what he was doing that he was a “zealot” who had lost all balance  that he is “beside” himself (2 Cor. 5:13).

He was dishonored, had evil reports spoken about him, and was charged with being a deceiver (2 Cor. 6:13). Some charged that he had wronged, corrupted, and defrauded brethren (2 Cor. 7:2). They charged that he “walked ac-cording to the flesh” (2 Cor. 10:2).

Paul’s Self Defense

Paul found repugnant his having to defend himself. He said, “I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you” (2 Cor. 12:11). In his self-defense, he repeatedly described his relating his conduct as “speaking like a fool” (2 Cor. 11:16-17, 21, 23; 12:6, 11). He was embarrassed that he had to write about what he had done to demonstrate to the Corinthians that he was an apostle of the Lord Jesus and had conducted himself honorably. The Corinthians had known Paul long enough that he did not need an epistle from or to them (2 Cor. 3:1-2). Why should he have to defend himself to them? Nevertheless, he was compelled to do so because his opponents were undermining his work.

Why Were These Men Attacking Paul?

What was at stake in Corinth that Paul felt the need to address the charges against him? There was much more involved than false charges being made against an innocent man. The false charges were motivated by a rejection of the Lord’s gospel and the preaching of another gospel. Paul’s opponents at Corinth were Judaizers (see 2 Cor. 11:22). The doctrine that was at stake was that discussed in the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15; Gal. 2) and in the books of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. That issue was this: “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). The reason that these false apostles in Corinth attacked and undermined Paul’s reputation was because they rejected the gospel that he preached! Because they did not believe that a person could be saved by faith in Christ Jesus without keeping the Law of Moses, they at-tacked the man who was preaching salvation by faith in Christ. Paul charged that they preached “another Jesus,” received “another spirit,” and preached “another gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4). They were “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:20). Whatever charges these false teachers had to make to undermine his influence they were willing to make be-cause they hated the gospel message that he preached. The issue was not the moral character of Paul but which gospel would prevail!

The ministers of Jesus Christ are the objects of slanderous, personal attacks from time to time. This has been true since the days of the apostles and continues to be true to-day. Those associated with Guardian of Truth have been maliciously attacked just the same as Paul. We have been charged with showing respect of persons by covering up known sins of those associated with us, lying, keeping files on brethren for malicious purposes, writing a creed, acting like buzzards, and many other slanderous words. Those who speak such slander assure us of their unfeigned love. But, what lies behind these charges? Is it a genuine concern for the souls of men who have stumbled into sin, who are leading others to commit the same kinds of sins, and are defending those sins as righteous deeds? Not at all. Rather, the charges are being made by malicious men because they reject the gospel which is being preached. There are men who want fellowship broadened to include men who preach a different gospel. Specifically the issue is focusing at this moment in time on receiving those who are teaching a contrary doctrine on divorce and remarriage. Some who teach the truth on divorce and remarriage wish to extend the right hands of fellowship to those who teach error on the subject. The reason that they make personal attacks is because they reject the gospel that is being preached  the gospel that says that those who preach false doctrines on divorce and remarriage should not be fellowshipped (Matt. 19:9; 2 John 9-11). To undermine the gospel, they attack the messenger, just like the Judaizers attacked Paul.

What Should We Do?

We should do exactly what Paul did. Paul was resolved to continue preaching what he believed whether or not the false teachers in Corinth ever respected him. He was deter-mined that “every word should be established at the mouth of two or three witnesses” (2 Cor. 13:1). Those who were guilty of sin would not be spared (2 Cor. 13:2). Unless the Corinthians repented of their sins and changed their ways, there was going to be a great confrontation when Paul arrived.

Paul did not say, “We should allow local church autonomy to prevail. If there are churches who believe that one should be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved, let them preach that message. They probably will not be able to fellowship some whom the rest of us could fellowship. Other local churches will preach salvation by grace through faith and receive into their fellowship Gentiles who have not been circumcised and do not keep the Law of Moses. We will just have to respect local church autonomy and agree to disagree.” That ploy to extend fellowship to those who were teaching another gospel did not work in Paul’s day, so why should we allow it to work in our own time?

Conclusion

Do not be distracted by malicious slanderers who try to divert men’s attention from the gospel by attacking the messengers. Cling to the gospel message and those who faithfully preach and live it!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 3 p. 2
February 6, 1997