Part 1 - What Divorce Is and What It Is Not

Part 1 - What Divorce Is and What It Is Not

THE DIVORCE POLICE

PART 1 - WHAT DIVORCE IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT

This article is in two parts. The first discusses divorce itself. The second discusses divorce as it relates to a divorced preacher. It is our hope that Christians will not merely rely or study what someone says but what the scripture says about the subject. This is a long article and by no means covers every facet of the issue. Still, there is enough here to provoke one's own private study and also to realize that the pontifications, platitudes, and contentions of the Divorce Police are not the last word on the issue. In fact, one will soon realize how the scriptures can be forced to produce Papist-like views. Since we are introducing some interesting Hebraisms into the discussion, we want to be clear that we are King James Only and are in no way advocating changing the King James Bible's English.

Divorce – A Deliberate Shellacking

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out (SHALACH) of his house. And whenshe is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out (SHALACH) of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away (SHALACH), may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. -- Deut. 24:1-4

The Old Testament uses an interesting Hebraism for divorce, which involves the word SHALACH. The idea of a putting away, a sending away (Gen. 21:14), a letting LOOSE (Gen. 49:21; Lev. 14:7), a letting go (Ex. 5:2), a driving out (Ex 24:28), and a putting out (Num. 5:2) is inherent in the word. The first occurrence of the word used for divorce is found in Gen. 21:14, where Abraham divorces his second wife, Hagar the concubine. More interesting is the use of the word in a situation in which an Israelite is allowed to take an attractive, captive, slave girl home to keep her for a month, go into her, have her as his wife, find disfavor in her and SHALACH her or let her go, as long as he did not resell her (Deut. 21:11-14). Another interesting situation is where a fellow marries the girl and he is not to SHALACH her or put her away for life, but if the tokens of her virginity, the bloody bed sheets, are not produced (when he accuses her of not being a virgin), she is really shellacked by stoning (Deut. 22:19-21). Moses employed the word, while laying down the rules for divorce. God is seen divorcing Israel for ADULTERY and playing the HARLOT, legitimate grounds for divorce in any Testament (Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:1, 8).

Divorce - A Deliberate Loosing

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away (APOLUO) privily. -- Matt. 1:19

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (APOLUO) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (APOSTASION - something separative, i.e., apostasy) . . . But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away (APOLUO) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (APOLUO) committeth adultery. --Matt. 5:31, 32

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (APOLUO) his wife for EVERY CAUSE? . . . They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing (BIBLION) of divorcement (APOSTASION - something separative, i.e., apostasy), and to put her away (APOLUO)? -- Matt. 19:3, 7

. . . Whosoever shall put away (APOLUO) his wife, except it be for fornication, and marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away (APOLUO) doth commit adultery. -- Matt. 19:9 (Mark 10:2, 4, 11, 12; Luke 16:18)

Divorce in the O.T. and N.T. seems to be in two parts, the act of divorce or putting away and the official bill or writing of Divorcement. The Old Testament Hebraisms are carried over into the New Testament into the Greek word APOLUO and the English and are used by the Lord Jesus for divorce. APOLUO is from APO (OFF OR AWAY) and LUO (LOOSE). There is not anything that is magical about the Greek Hebrew, or English words for the act of divorce, for they are all very common everyday usage words, LOOSE being one of the synonyms in each language. The usage of APOLUO can be found as: Put away (Eph. 4:31), sent away (matt 15:39), LOOSED (Luke 13:12), release (Matt. 27:15), letgo (Acts 4:23), dismissed (Acts 19:41).

But If Thou Marry, Thou Hast Not Sinned

Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed (LUO). Art thou loosed (LUSIS) from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned . . . -- 1 Cor. 7:27, 28

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is LOOSED (KARTEGEO)from the law of her husband. -- Rom. 7:2

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty (eleutheroo - a liberty that is exempt from obligation or liability) to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. -- 1 Cor. 7:39

LUSIS is from LUO; a loosening, i.e., (spec.) divorce: - to be loosed (Strong's), as LUO means to "loosen" (lit. or fig.): - break(up), destroy, dissolve, (un)loose. melt, put off (Strong's). These words are used through the N.T. as aLOOSING (Rev. 9:14). So, is 1 Cor. 7:27 referring to "divorce" or another kind of loosing?

The Divorce Police tell us this refers to the death dissolving "loosing" of Romans 7:2, regarding the marriage bond of Romans 7:2 and 1 Cor. 7:39. The only problem with that is that Rom.7:2 is talking about being loosed from the law and 1 Cor. 7:2 is talking about being loosed from a wife. Romans 7:2 uses a legal word that is in regard to nullification of that law (Rom. 3:3 - none effect), (Rom. 3:31 - make void), (1 Cor. 13:10 - done away). The loosing in Romans 7:2 is a legal loosing from the law (not the husband) that is accomplished by another indirectly. The loosing in 1 Cor. 7:39 is a loosing that releases one from obligation or liability that is not deliberate. The loosing in 1 Cor. 7:27 is a deliberate loosing from the wife, something the man has initiated. To test the Divorce Police theory, we have interposed their view into the passage in question as well as our view for comparison:

Art thou married unto a wife? seek not to have her killed or die to be loosed. Art thou loosed by death from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned . . . -- 1 Cor. 7:28 (Divorce Police Version)

Art’s thou married unto a wife? Seek not to be divorced. Art’s thou divorced from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned . . . -- 1 Cor. 7:28 (Herb Evans Version)

Divorce Police jump through a number of hoops to get around this passage. Some times, they try to obscure the passage with the context’s virgins and widows, which have nothing to do with this passage. Then they try to over emphasize the legal loosings from the law in other passages. The last resort that I heard was trying to make the passage be a non-divorce separation of two married folks due to the instructions in the chapter. Yet, we have seen no successful exegesis of the verse itself, regarding the binding AND THE LOOSING in the verse, which could not apply to virgins, widows, or merely separated folks. One Divorce Police interpretation wanted the first half of the verse to be an instruction to not seek to DISSOLVE the MARRIAGE or the bond, but got the hiccups, when we pointed out the implication to the last half of the verse was, Is your marriage DISSOLVED, seek not a wife. It is talking about DIVORCE, plain and simple. Not only is the Divorce Police's definition of LOSINGin question but also their definition of being BOUND. They are unable to exegete the passage, because of their erroneous definitions and trying to have it both ways.

Burdens and Yokes Meant Only for Others

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. -- 1 Cor. 7:2

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.-- 1Cor. 7:9

The Divorce Police often put yokes around the necks of those less fortunate, which they are unable to bear. Burdens that they are unwilling to lift with one of their fingers. It may be that it is not on purpose, but it is the end result that hurts already injured folks.

Divorce Police tell us that these instructions are to single folks only, so let us suppose that they are. The rationale' here is that fornication can be prevented by marriage. Is such a temptation to commit fornication any less for a divorced man, who has had the experience ofthe marriage bed than the single man who has not? What recourse does the divorced man have to avoid fornication, and if there is such recourse, why was it not advised for the single man? Is it better to continually commit adultery in one's heart than to commit adultery by marriage? (as say the divorce police even if fornication is involved with the fellow's ex-wife)

If it is possible for single people not to be able to contain unless married, who have not experienced the marriage bed, why are divorced folks expected to contain without marriage? If it is better for single people to marry than to burn, why is it not better for divorced people to marry than to burn?

No Divorce for Any Reason in this Ageper the Divorce Police

And I say unto you, Whosoever [Jewish husbands?] shall put away his wife [married or espoused?], except it be for fornication [single or bethrothal sexual sin?], and shall marry another [second marriage or first?], committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. – Matt 19:9

The Divorce Police deal mostly in pontification or this is so because I tell you so. They are unable to develop a scriptural rationale' or reasoning in their proof-texts. If there is a point to be made for them, it is here. For how does one explain a man getting a divorce and then after the divorce be charged with adultery by marrying as well as the woman being charged with adultery for marrying AFTER the divorce? The explanation lies in the question that Jesus was asked and the exception that Jesus gave. Remember that the Pharisees wanted to know if adultery was permissible for every reason, and Jesus responded with the only reason, "fornication." So, how is that the answer? Jesus was saying that divorce and remarriage for everything but fornication was adultery.

Naturally, if the right reason, fornication, provoked the divorce, the subsequent marriage was not considered adultery, because themarriage was already adulterous. In the case of a man getting a divorce for his wife burning his toast, the marriage was not broken until the adultery or fornication was committed. In these cases, for the wrong reason, it was the second marriage that was the adultery. Still, the Divorce Police must use the same adultery exemption as we do for the man, who in their estimation has a legitimate reason for divorce, i.e., according to their view of what fornication really is as follows.

The divorce police have invented a curious doctrine to buttress their views of divorce for any reason, in order to get around (with a Corban excuse) the Matt. 19:9 exception that the Saviour allowed, namely, fornication. It goes something like this; if a man like Joseph is espoused to a woman and finds out that she has been with another man, he can divorce her, for she has violated her betrothal (divorce due to her violation of the unconsummated marriage is allowed, so if she can fool him until consummation, she is in for life). Well, we are puzzled at how a female betrothal violator can commit adultery with another that she marries, if the first marriage was not consummated in which she was divorced for this limited, betrothal fornication.

We do not have Gentile betrothals today, therefore they say that there is now no reason nor excuse for divorce (even though the passage does not say Jewish fornication but says whosoever fornication). It seems to us that if the fornication only applied to the Jew, the "adultery" also should only apply to the Jew and not the divorced Gentile. Except for being a pontificated pat answer, there is no validity or credibility to such a limited betrothal fornication theory. It must be relegated to the doctrine by innuendo or inference category.

Does Fornication Pertain to Unmarried, Single, Betrothed or Espoused Women?

We have been reading an increasing number of articles about divorce, which have been parroting the theory that adultery is a sin of married folk, while fornication pertains to single women and is a violation of the first part of the Jewish marriage, the espousal or bethrothal and that Jesus made an exception for divorce only to that kind of fornication. Now, if our friends insist that the espousal is really marriage that needs a divorce, then fornication is not a sin of single folk. If they insist that the espousal or betrothal be not really marriage, then there is no need for a divorce! Let us consider some implications regarding fornication being limited to a betrothal violation or only a sin of the single person.

If only Jewish husbands were allowed to divorce their espoused wives if they discovered that they had been promiscuous, did this also hold true after the marriage was consummated? Or just before consummation? Why does it say "whosoever?" If the espoused marriage may be broken by divorce before consummation, how does the betrothed woman commit adultery with another, if she marries another, while being a single unconsummated fornicator? If the marriage is consummated and the husband discovers she has violated her betrothal, why is this not fornication? If she is then divorced, does she commit adultery with another husband upon marriage? We would like to pursue the subject further by pointing to the following:

Moreover he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the [non married or espoused?] inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit FORNICATION, and compelled Judah thereto. -- 2 Chr. 21:11

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the [non married or espoused?] children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit FORNICATION. -- Rev. 2:14

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves [non married or espoused?] over to FORNICATION, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. -- Jude 1:7

And I gave her space to repent of her [non married or espoused?]FORNICATION; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit ADULTERY with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. -- Rev. 2:21-22

And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom [non married or espoused?] with the daughters of Moab . . . And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. -- Num. 25:9

. . . that ye [non married or espoused?] should abstain from FORNICATION . . . -- 1 Th. 4:3, 4

Neither let us commit FORNICATION, as some of them [non married or espoused?] committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. -- 1 Cor. 10:8

It is reported commonly that there is FORNICATION among you [non married or espoused?], and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. -- 1 Cor. 5:1

We shall not bother citing Strong's or Webster or anyone else regarding the definition of this word, which most surely would bear us out, but we are more than comfortable with the way that the word is used in scripture. It would be quite a stretch, indeed, to advocate that all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Sodom, Gomorrha, Israel, the twenty three

thousand, the twenty four thousand, or the "everyone," who Paul instructs to abstain from fornication in 1 Thessalonians, were either single, betrothed (or both) to have committed or might commit fornication. This betrothal fornication is fantasy land interpretation.