Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: June 18, 2006
A REVIEW OF “A STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES CONCERING
MARRIAGE & DIVORCE” (Part 1)
Ben Justice
Several weeks ago, a brother handed me a copy of “A Study of the Scriptures
Concerning Marriage & Divorce.” This study was written by Bill Haley and was
used in a Bible class setting at the Owensville church of Christ. I was asked to
review it. After reviewing it, I quickly discovered some very serious and egregious
errors in this study of marriage & divorce. Although there are some good things
worth noting, the errors are damnable and must be exposed. I certainly take no
great pleasure in doing this, but the Bible commands that we expose the unfruitful
works of darkness (Eph. 5:11). We must be aware of the teachings of some area
congregations. It is my hope and prayer that those who teach these errors and
those who have embraced these errors will recognize that they are indeed errors to
be rejected for the truth of God’s word. This review will be done carefully and
critically, and thus, it will take several bulletin articles to cover all of the material I
wish to present.
The brother who wrote this study on marriage and divorce stated, “A complete study
of marriage, divorce and marriage after divorce must include both Old and New
Testament scriptures and no additions or subtractions” (emphasis, his). Let us
establish at the outset in this review that the laws of the OT concerning divorce
and remarriage have been abolished (cf. Col. 2:14). The Law of Christ (the NT) is
what regulates marriage, divorce, & remarriage today (Matt. 19:9). One can learn
the truth about these subjects only by consulting the teachings of the NT. The OT
has nothing to offer by way of law today. Now, we can certainly learn what God
required in the OT concerning those who lived under that law system, but to
suggest that marriage, divorce, and marriage after divorce “ ‘must’ include both Old
and New Testament scriptures” is not correct. Throughout this review, we will be
expanding upon this in greater detail.
In this study, this brother asks a series of questions, and he also supplies the
answers. He asks, “Did God ever permit divorce?” In other words, was there ever a
time when God permitted or allowed divorce? He correctly answers, “Yes ref
Deuteronomy 24:1-4.”
His next question is, “Did God ever permit marriage after divorce?” Again, he
correctly answers, “Yes ref Deuteronomy 24:1-4.”
His third question is, “Did God ever forbid anyone to marry a divorced person?” He
correctly answers, “Yes — The Levitical priests — Leviticus 21:1-7 & Ezekiel 44:15-
22.” Lev. 21:7 states this about the priests and marriage — “They (the priests) shall
not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from
her husband: for he is holy unto his God.”
His fourth question is, “Does God ever forbid a divorced person to marry again?”
The first three questions began with “did.” This question begins with “does.”
There is a difference in “did” and “does.” “Did” is past tense; “does” includes the
present. The way the question is asked (using “does” instead of “did”) would
include today. It’s like asking, “Did God ever require animal sacrifices,” to asking,
“Does God ever require animal sacrifices.” “Yes,” God did in the past require
animal sacrifices; “No,” God does not require animal sacrifices today. He answers
his question by saying, “Yes — A man who divorces his wife cannot marry her again
after she has been another man’s wife. Ref Deuteronomy 24:4.” So, in asking,
“Does God ever forbid a divorced person to marry again,” he references
Deuteronomy 24:4, as if these passages are still binding today. However, these
passages do not regulate divorce today.
This brother spends a considerable amount of space discussing Matthew 5:31-32
and Matthew 19:3-9. In his discussion of these passages, he consistently refers
back to the teachings of Deut. 24:1-4. In Deut. 24:1, Moses said to the children of
Israel, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find
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 of his house.” The word
“uncleanness” is translated “unseemly thing” in other translations. This brother
argues that this means “fornication.” He explicitly states, “Jesus defines the term
‘unseemly thing’ used in Deuteronomy 24:1 to mean fornication.” I ask, “Where
does Jesus define the ‘unseemly thing’ as ‘fornication’?” This brother assumes
that Jesus did so in Matt. 19:9, wherein he stated, “And I say unto you, Whosoever
shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, . . .” However, as we will see later
on in this review, the “uncleanness” is not fornication. Also, this brother’s
analysis and conclusions of Matthew 19:9 is wrong and contradictory, as we will see
next week.
I AM GOING TO STAY A FATHER
At a time when being a buddy to one’s son is popular, I am going to stay a father. I
believe it may yet prove to have been a bit of sad psychology when dads are called
“Jim, Pete, Art, Tom, Jack” by their children. When Spock, Freud, Dewey, and
William James have conspired to make dad a minor stockholder on the home’s
board of directors, when women’s rights, civil rights, people’s rights, children’s
rights, and property rights have made it wrong for fathers to speak with authority, I
am going to stay a father.
If a gap exists between my sons and daughters and myself, I am going to work hard
to understand. But I’m also going to work hard to be understood. When they tell it
like it is, I’ll listen, even if I like it better like it was. If old-fashioned things like
prayer, Bible study, worship, and faith in God ever seem to my children too be out
of it — I trust God to have enough faith to pray for them, and pledge with Job to
offer up additional sacrifices for them.
With love in our home I will answer questions about the facts of life, but at
nudeness and lewdness I refuse to wink. Drinking and smoking are as out of place
and unwanted in my home as profanity or the plague. If experimentation with
drugs is ever a problem, it will be in violation of my every prayer and request. No
laissez faire attitude will be accepted here — even if the weed is legalized and
becomes as acceptable as social drinking.
I want my children to know that I make mistakes, that I am foolish, proud, and
often inconsistent. But I will not tolerate that as an excuse for my hypocrisy. I
ask them to help me change in the methods expected of a parent. Others may look
to the under 30 crowd for the wisdom to throw away the past and to say what will
remain for future generations; others may let the offspring in the house determine
the foods, the music, and the spending of the household, but I am going to stay a
father. —Paul Harvey
======================================================================
[NOTE: Although we would not agree with Paul Harvey’s theology, he has
spoken words of truth relative to being fathers. On this father’s day, let us
as fathers be determined to be the kind of fathers God would have us be.]
“For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after
him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice, and judgment; . . .”
(Genesis 18:19)