Choose
any combination of categories for your desired Bible Reading.
Currently, I am reading the categories of Law and Literature for both
the old and the new testament.
Interesting,
very interesting. All the above statements are true, but this is not
a comprehensive list. Well, right about now, you might ask:”what is
missing? Spiritual truth is my answer. Truth as found only in the
Bible. Obviously, statements like the above are found in the book of
Proverbs and similar instructions in the book of Ecclesiastes, but I
like to think of Jesus when I consider such things.
Then,
there is the following passage, with the last verse being the
cornerstone…
John
17 ( World English
Bible )
13
But now I come to you,
and I say these things in the world, that they may have my joy made
full in themselves.
14
I have given them your word.
The world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am
not of the world.
15
I pray not that you would take
them from the world, but that you would keep them from the evil one.
16
They are not of the world even
as I am not of the world.
17
Sanctify them in your
truth. Your word is truth.
The
Bible teaches you what God wants you to know and the purity of its
message will change you. I am not saying that you will be a perfect
person, but the more you learn about God’s desire for your life,
the better you will be. After all, isn’t that the crux of
living; taking what you have and using it the best way possible. The
perfect application of this concept is made perfect by the designer
of everything- GOD. So, listen to what HE has to say and not just
some human musings. Remember, Jesus also said:
Matthew
7 ( WEB )
21
Not everyone who says to me,
‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who
does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22
Many will tell me in that day,
‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, in your name cast
out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?’
23
Then I will tell them, ‘I
never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.’
24
“Everyone therefore who
hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise
man, who built his house on a rock.
25
The rain came down, the
floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it
didn’t fall, for it was founded on the rock.
26
Everyone who hears these words
of mine, and doesn’t do them will be like a foolish man, who built
his house on the sand.
27
The rain came down, the floods
came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and
great was its fall.”
A great challenge confronting the church is denominationalism...
According to one account, there are more than 38,000 different
denominations!
Different religious organizations, bearing many different
religious names
Hindering the spread of the gospel ("Why, you Christians can't
even agree!")
Denominationalism confronted the church early on...
Many think that it started with the Protestant reformation (ca.
1517 AD)
Properly understood, its origins can be traced to the second
century AD
[What is denominationalism? Why is it wrong? Such questions this study
will address...]
DEFINING DENOMINATION AND DENOMINATIONALISM
WHAT IS A DENOMINATION...?
"A large group of religious congregations united under a common
faith and name and organized under a single administrative and
legal hierarchy." - The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language
By their common name and tie to a governing body above the
local congregation, they are "denominated" from all
congregations that do not submit to the same authority
Some examples:
The Roman Catholic Church is a denomination made up of those
churches that submit to the pope in Rome
The Eastern Orthodox Church is a denomination made up of
those churches that submit to the patriarch of
Constantinople
The Anglican Church of England is a denomination made up of
those churches that submit to the archbishop of Canterbury
The Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) is made up of those
churches that submit to the synod in Missouri
-- A denomination is a group of congregations that are joined
together under some governing body, all wearing the same
distinctive name
WHAT IS DENOMINATIONALISM...?
According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language:
"The tendency to separate into religious denominations"
"Advocacy of separation into religious denominations"
"Strict adherence to a denomination; sectarianism"
For the purpose in this series, I will be applying the term to
any approval of the denominational division which exists today
Many in denominations today are not all that devoted to
their denominational principles or interests
But by membership in a denomination they implicitly advocate
separation into religious denominations
[Is denominationalism really a challenge confronting the church? Some
consider it a blessing: e.g., "Join the church of your choice!" But
from a Biblical perspective, consider...]
WHY DENOMINATIONALISM IS WRONG
IT IS UN-SCRIPTURAL...
That is, it is without Scriptural support
There is no basis in the Bible for local churches being
divided up into various denominational bodies
There is no denomination that can go to the Bible and say,
"See that passage? There is our church (denomination)!"
In the New Testament...
Local congregations were independent, autonomous
(self-governing)
Church organization was limited to within the local
congregation
With elders (also known as pastors, bishops, overseers,
presbyters) appointed to oversee only the congregation of
which they were members - cf. Ac 20:17,28; 1Pe 5:1-2
The only authority above the local church in the NT was Christ
and His apostles
Once the church began, apostles were not replaced after they
died - e.g., Ac 12:1-2
But through the Word of God, the authority of Christ and His
apostles continues
-- Individuals, synods, conferences, etc., that presume to usurp
authority over local churches today do so without Scriptural
authority
IT IS ANTI-SCRIPTURAL...
Not only is it without scriptural support, it is contrary to
what the Bible teaches
It is contrary to the prayer of Jesus for unity among His
believers - Jn 17:20-23
It is condemned by Paul in his epistle to the church at Corinth
There are to be no divisions among believers - 1Co 1:10-13
In view of Jesus' words, we should not be surprised when
unbelievers are slow to accept the gospel coming from a
divided church
Many point to the divided condition of those professing to
follow Christ...
Atheists and agnostics use religious division as an excuse
not to believe in God
Muslims, Jews, etc. often use denominationalism reasons not
to believe in Christ
Denominationalism has also given support and encouragement to
the cults
Mormonism started in reaction to the denominationalism of
Joseph Smith's day
Those who call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses" use
religious division to encourage people to follow their own
strictly-controlled organization
-- How can any true disciple of Christ support such a harmful
concept?
OTHERS WHO VIEWED DENOMINATIONALISM AS WRONG...
Martin Luther, a leader of the Reformation Movement:
"I ask that men make no reference to my name, and call
themselves not Lutherans, but Christians. What is Luther? My
doctrine, I am sure, is not mine, nor have I been crucified
for any one. St. Paul, in 1 Cor. 3, would not allow Christians
to call themselves Pauline or Petrine, but Christian. How then
should I, poor, foul carcass that I am, come to have men give
to the children of Christ a name derived from my worthless
name? No, no, my dear friends; let us abolish all party names,
and call ourselves Christians after Him Whose doctrine we have."
- Hugh Thomason Kerr, A Compend of Luther's Theology
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943, p. 135)
John Wesley, another reformation leader, among whose followers
are Methodists, Wesleyans, etc.:
"Would to God that all party names, and unscriptural phrases
and forms which have divided the Christian world, were forgot
and that the very name [Methodist] might never be mentioned
more, but be buried in eternal oblivion." - John Wesley,
Universal Knowledge, A Dictionary and Encyclopedia of Arts,
Science, History, Biography, Law, Literature, Religions,
Nations, Races, Customs, and Institutions, Vol. 9, Edward A.
Pace, Editor (New York: Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1927, p. 540)
Charles Spurgeon, one of the greatest Baptist preachers who
ever lived:
"I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be
a Baptist living! I hope that the Baptist name will soon
perish, but let Christ's name last forever." - Spurgeon
Memorial Library, Vol. I., p. 168
-- Note well: these individuals were bemoaning the use of
denominational titles, not organizational ties per se
CONCLUSION
But it is organizational ties above the local church that leads to
denominationalism...
Once local churches are "organized under a single administrative
and legal hierarchy", denominational names soon follow!
And so it is that denominationalism with its religious division
continues to grow!
If local churches are to successfully confront the challenge of
denominationalism, they must...
“Bring them up in the training and admonition of
the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).
It is the responsibility of parents to discipline their children.
“Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of
correction will drive it far from him” (Proverbs 22:15).
“The rod and rebuke give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings
shame to his mother” (Proverbs 29:15).
“He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him
disciplines him promptly” (Proverbs 13:24).
“Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give
delight to your soul” (Proverbs 29:17).
“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he
will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).
“Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and
we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection
to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days
chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we
may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful
for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the
peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it”
(Hebrews 12:9-11).
Let us examine an important text about raising children:
“Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor
your father and mother,’ which is the first commandment with
promise: ‘that it may be well with you and you may live long on
the earth.’ And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to
wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the
Lord” (Ephesians 6:1-4).
“Children obey your parents in the Lord.”
Children are told to obey their parents and their parents must
teach them to obey.
To do this effectively, the parents must give the child a good
example by obeying God themselves!
The man must fulfil his responsibility as leader in the home.
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and
gave Himself for her” (Ephesians 5:25). “Husbands, love your wives
and do not be bitter toward them” (Colossians 3:19).
And the wife must submit to her husband. “Wives, submit to your
own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (Colossians 3:18). “Wives,
submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head
of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church, and He is the Savior of
the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the
wives be to their own husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:23, 24).
Notice that the children are to obey both parents. But how can
children obey their parents if the parents tell them different things?
When there is conflict between the parents, some bad parents
even use the children as a way to rebel against the other parent. This is
very bad for the children and the children will try to use one parent
against the other. If one parents tells them to do something, they will
run to the other parent.
Parents must support each other’s authority. As head of the house,
the father may overrule something his wife has said, but he may only
do so if it is something very important. Otherwise he must support what
his wife tells the children to do and punish them if they do not obey
their mother.
The wife may not contradict what the father tells the children to
do, but must support his authority. If she really thinks he is wrong, she
should discuss it with him in private, and not in the presence of the
children.
This all must be done in love. Then the children can learn to obey
their parents.
“‘Honor your father and mother,’ which is the first
commandment with promise: ‘that it may be well with you and
you may live long on the earth’” (Ephesians 6:2, 3).
Children are to obey their parents for the child’s own good.
Children lack experience and can end up having a very bad life, and
may even die young because of not obeying their parents. “The eye
that mocks his father, and scorns obedience to his mother, the ravens
of the valley will pick it out, and the young eagles will eat it” (Proverbs
30:17).
Parents who fail to teach their children to obey, harm their
children and themselves. I know a couple in another country who told
us once: “We do not invite that family into our home because their
children do not behave. They pick up things that they should leave
alone, and even break things. They do not obey their parents.” If you
do not teach your children to obey, they and you will suffer. The
children will also have trouble in school and in society if they do not
learn obedience. And later they are more likely to also disobey God.
“And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath”
(Ephesians 6:4).
There are various ways that a father can provoke his children to
wrath: if he is a hypocrite and demands things of his children that he
does not do himself; if he is unfair in his dealing with his children; if he
favors one child above another; if he is lazy and does not meet his
responsibilities in the home. Children are not stupid. They know if they are
being mistreated by their parents and this can make them very angry.
This is not referring to a child not liking punishment. Of course a child
does not like being punished. That is the whole idea of punishment! But
if the father does something that the child knows is not right, it can
cause the child to develop a deep-seated anger. Fathers must avoid
provoking their children to wrath.
I want to show you an elephant. This paper weight is valuable to
me personally because I remember it being on my father’s desk when I
was seven years old. There was something else on his desk for which I
had great respect: a ruler. My father spanked me with that ruler when I
did something that was very bad. When I did “little things” that were
wrong, my mother would give me a swat on my behind with her hand or
she might even give me a real spanking with her hand. But if I did
something serious, she would say: “I’m going to have to tell your father
about that!” And then I knew I was in big trouble! But I never
remember being punished by either of my parents when I did not know
in my heart that I deserved it. I am thankful that my parents loved me
enough to discipline me when I was a child.
Parents must have great respect for the children God gives them:
“Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to
you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is
in heaven” (Matthew 18:10).
How you talk to your children is important. “Let your speech
always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer each one” (Colossians 4:6). This also applies to
how we talk to our children.
Children may never be abused verbally! My parents always treated
me with respect, and I never remember either of my parents saying
anything to me that was demeaning or caused me to question whether
they respected me and loved me.
If you holler and scream at your children. They will holler and
scream back at you. If you say disrespectful things to your children,
that teaches them to say disrespectful things to others, including you.
You must be consistent and not make fake threats. If for example
you say: “You do that one more time and you are getting a spanking.”
They do it one more time, but you do not give them a spanking. That
teaches them not to pay attention to anything you say. Be very careful
about saying what you are going to do unless you really plan to do it.
I must also point out that there is a big difference between a
spanking and a beating. You may never beat your child. A beating
causes physical injury. A spanking does not cause injury. There is a
good, well-padded place that is suitable for a spanking. It hurts a little
but does no harm.
Also, never punish your child while you are out of control because
of anger. It is alright to be angry, if you still have control of yourself
and do not do or say something wrong because of your anger. It is
good for a child to know that certain things make his parents angry.
Certain things we do, make God angry!
“Bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord”
(Ephesians 6:4).
This means that we are to teach them about God. We spend much
time and effort providing our children with nourishing food for their
bodies. They also need spiritual food. Admonition refers to
encouragement to do what is right. Training refers to teaching them to
actually do what is right. We must know the word of God ourselves to
teach it to our children. And we must live according to the word of God
because example is the most powerful teacher.
Moses emphasized this to the people of Israel.
“And these words which I command you today shall be in your
heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of
them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you
lie down, and when you rise up” (Deuteronomy 6:6, 7).
“Therefore you shall lay up these words of mine in your heart and
in your soul, and bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be
as frontlets between your eyes. You shall teach them to your children,
speaking of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the
way, when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deuteronomy 11:18,
19).
Bringing up children in the training and admonition of the Lord is a
full-time job! Let us pray for wisdom and help.
Amen.
Over the centuries, critics of the Bible have devoted their energies to
attempting to pinpoint contradictions and discrepancies in an effort to
discredit its claim to inspiration. On one occasion in the life of
Jesus on Earth, the Pharisees confronted Him and demanded to know if the
Law permitted a man to divorce his wife “for just any reason?” Jesus
immediately directed their attention to two Old Testament verses that
provided the proper answer: Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24—which provided
a negative answer as evidenced by Jesus’ own divine commentary on the
two verses: “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore
what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6).
Observe carefully: humans have no right to separate what God Himself has
joined together, unless He gives His approval to do so. Hence,
wholesale, carte blanche divorce is not sanctioned by God. This view of
divorce coincides with God’s true attitude toward divorce in His
forthright declaration through the prophet Malachi: “For the LORD God of
Israel says that He hates divorce” (2:16).
Before Jesus could complete His response as to whether there are any
exceptions to the general rule forbidding divorce, His questioners, no
doubt stung by the stringency of Jesus’ answer, sought to justify their
rejection of such a narrow viewpoint by calling attention to the Mosaic
injunction in Deuteronomy 24: “Why then did Moses command to give
a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” Their words constitute
an allusion to Deuteronomy 24. Read carefully the passage as it occurs
in the Pentateuch:
When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds
no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and
he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends
her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and
becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and
writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her
out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his
wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to
be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination
before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the
LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
If this Old Testament passage provides a suitable answer to the
Pharisees’ question, Jesus undoubtedly would have alluded to it.
Instead, His response to their quibble clearly demonstrates that this
passage does notprovide the proper answer to their
question concerning the propriety of divorce. He discounted the passage
by offering a rebuttal to its applicability to the question at hand.
Moses Did Not Command Divorce
First, the Mosaic legislation, which included an acknowledgment that
divorce was occurring in Israelite society, was a reflection of the hard hearts that
existed at the time. No doubt, Egypt’s influence on the first two
generations of Israelites included a relaxed view of divorce,
establishing a practice that was underway even before God gave His
covenant at Sinai. This acknowledgment in no way provided divine
sanction for or approval of divorce. The Law neither commanded divorce
nor established divorce as a right. After all, who would argue that God
would overlook, sanction, or save those who possess hard hearts?
Will anyone be in heaven that possesses a hard heart? To ask is to
answer. Hence, Jesus’ pronouncement that the Mosaic provision pertained
to “hard hearts” underscores the fact that it was not intended as a
divine sanction of divorce—let alone a command (eneteilato)
to do so. Such a command would, in fact, have been in direct conflict
with God’s original intention as reflected in Jesus’ response on the
occasion.
Meaning of “permitted”?
But if Moses did not “command” divorce, why did Jesus assert that Moses
“allowed” it? What did He mean by His use of the term “allowed”
(ESV/RSV), “suffered” (KJV/ASV), or “permitted” (NKJV/NASB)? The
underlying word provided by Matthew is epetrepsen. This Greek word means “to allow someone to do something, allow, permit,”1 “to give over, to leave to the entire trust or management of any one; hence, to permit, allow, suffer.”2 The English words “allow” and “permit” do not necessarily imply permission or approval. For example, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “allow” as “1a: permit; 1b: to fail to restrain or prevent.” For the latter definition, this example of usage is given: “allow the dog to roam.”3 You may not want your dog to roam the neighborhood, yet do nothing to prevent it. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “allow” as “to give permission for someone to do something, or to not prevent something from happening.”4 And the American Heritage Dictionary gives as the first meaning of “allow”: “To let do or happen; permit.”5 The word does not include the idea of sanction, authorization, or approval—let alone forgiveness. God allowed divorce in the sense that He tolerated it—like
He does the wicked behavior of the world’s population throughout
history. He “puts up with it.” He allows it to go on—without implying
endorsement. As Greek expositor Alexander Bruce clarified—“permitted,
not enjoined.”6
This understanding is confirmed by two additional Greek terms that are
similarly used. In Paul’s address to the idolatrous Athenian
philosophers, he courageously declared: “Truly, these times of ignorance
God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). The Greek verb rendered “overlooked” (huperorao) is defined as “to overlook, disregard; to bear with,”7 “to indulgently take no notice of, overlook, disregard.”8 Paul
was certainly not telling the Athenians that in the past God endorsed
idolatry or did not reckon it as sin. Indeed, all those who entered
eternity prior to Christianity in an idolatrous state will be eternally
lost. Rather, Paul intended to impress his pagan audience with the fact
that God had put up with a great deal of inexcusable polytheism through
the centuries. But with the coming of Christianity, all who continued to
worship false gods were under divine mandate to forsake their idolatry
and turn to Christ.
The KJV translated the Greek word in this verse as “winked at”: “And
the times of this ignorance God winked at.” What did “winked at” mean in
1611? Interestingly enough, William Shakespeare provides the answer. In
his famous play Romeo & Juliet, the prince of Verona,
Escalus, delivers a stinging rebuke to the grieving families who have
gathered in the wake of the tragic deaths of their two children—deaths
spawned by their two warring factions:
Where be these enemies? Capulet! Montague!
See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate,
That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love. And I for winking at your discords too Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish’d.9
Escalus had, in fact, on more than one occasion, intervened with stern
rebukes to urge the warring factions to cease and desist their
hostilities—but to no avail. Hence, he “winked” at their discords in the
sense that he allowed, tolerated, and permitted them to continue without forcibly preventing them.
He certainly did not endorse, approve, or forgive their discordant
activities throughout the period in which they occurred. But he did not stop or physically restrain them. He had hoped that his repeated verbal admonitions would have been heeded.
A second Greek term that reinforces the proper meaning of Jesus’ use of
the word “allowed/permitted” is the synonym which occurs three times in
Paul’s dark portrait of the Gentile world in his letter to the Romans:
“God also gave them up to uncleanness” (1:24).
“God gave them up to vile passions” (1:26)
“God gave them over to a debased mind” (1:28).
The Greek term rendered “gave them up/over” (paradidomi) means
“to give over, hand over, deliver up, turn over” and includes the idea
to “abandon” as in “he abandoned them to impurity.”10In
addition to the three occurrences in Romans 1, the same word occurs in
Stephen’s great speech before the High Priest and Jewish council, in
which he described the generation that exited Egypt and constructed a
golden calf to worship: “Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven” (Acts 7:42). A variety of English translation renderings make clear the meaning:
NRSV: “But God turned away from them and handed them over to worship the host of heaven”
NCV/ICB/EXB: “But God turned against them and did not try to stop them from worshiping the sun, moon, and stars.”
NIRV: “But God turned away from them. He let them go on worshiping the sun, moon and stars.”
NOG: ““So God turned away from them and let them worship the sun, moon, and stars.”
ERV: “But God turned against them and let them continue worshiping the army of false gods in the sky.”
DARBY/NASB1995: “But God turned and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven.”
Once again, it is plain to see that Jesus, Paul, and Stephen all
referred to the same point, i.e., that God can tolerate and allow people
to “go their own way” without His allowance implying endorsement,
approval, or forgiveness.
“From the Beginning”
Second, observe that Jesus next redirected His questioners’ attention
back to the two verses given in His initial response to their
question—verses that pertain to the very “beginning” of the human race
when God articulated His intention regarding marriage. His remark (“from
the beginning it was not so”—vs. 8) presses the fact that God’s will
for marriage is ultimately seen at the Creation when God articulated the
guiding principle that answers the Pharisees’ question. Genesis 1:27
and Genesis 2:24 are intended to be normative injunctions enjoined upon
all people for all time. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent presses this very
point when he observes that the use of the perfect tense in Matthew 19:8
indicates a past action that continues to be active: “Notwithstanding
Moses’ permission, the case has not been so from the beginning until now. The original ordinance has never been abrogated nor superseded, but continues in force.”11 In other words, the sole exception—the only ground for legitimate divorce—from the Garden of Eden to our present day, has always been fornication.12 This firm reality explains why even God divorced His spiritual spouse—Israel—on the sole grounds of adultery (Jeremiah 3:6-8).
The Meaning of Moses’ Directive
Third, careful analysis of the text of Deuteronomy 24 yields additional
insights that clarify the Lord’s outright rejection of the passage as
prototypical. Observe that the verses in question are lodged in a
context of a particular type of legal material found in the Law of Moses
known as casuistic law. This format for conveying legal obligations is
couched in what logicians refer to as a “hypothetical syllogistic”
arrangement—“If…then….”—in which the “if” portion of the statement is
known as the “antecedent” while the “then” segment is the “consequent.”
Grammarians identify the two segments as the “protasis” and the
“apodosis.”
A protasis may have multiple conditions, joined together in English by
the conjunction “and.” In Hebrew grammar, the conjunction is a single
letter (the waw) which is prefixed to the subsequent word.
Context must determine what conditions are part of the protasis, and at
what point in the series the apodosis commences. In the case of
Deuteronomy, however, it is evident that the protasis continues through
verse 3 and the protasis (“then…”) commences with verse 4. Here are the
conditions of the protasis:
When a man takes a wife and marries her
and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her
and he writes her a certificate of divorce, and puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house
and she has departed from his house
and goes and becomes another man’s wife
and if the latter husband detests her
and he writes her a certificate of divorce, and puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife…
Each occurrence of “and” as bolded above is a waw in the Hebrew text. The apodosis now commences:13
Then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back
to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination
before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the
LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Observe carefully that the seven conditions of verses 1-3 are
hypothetical, that is, they envision what some person or persons might
do. They are not commands. They are not instructions on how to achieve a
divorce. They assume that the perpetrator of the actions has made up
his mind to divorce his wife regardless of God’s will on the matter—the
“hard heart” of which Jesus spoke. Such is typically the case with the
conditions of a protasis. For example, consider a similar construction
in Exodus 21:29—
If the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has
been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that
it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner
also shall be put to death.
The four conditions of the protasis are not actions that are approved by God.
They merely reflect circumstances that could potentially occur among
people in a farm society. The apodosis is designed to provide God’s
attempt to manage the unpleasant situation by providing after-the-fact
assistance—not indicate God’s sanction of the events that led up to the
dilemma at hand. Far from providing authority for divorce, Deuteronomy
24 was intended to be a limitationon divorce—an
attempt to minimize and lessen its frequency. In the process, it served
as a measure designed to address the mistreatment of women: “It
prevented the husband from later claiming rights over this ex-wife.”14
Having disposed of the Pharisees’ quibble concerning Deuteronomy 24,
Jesus brought His response to its logical climax by applying God’s
original marriage law to the specific matter of divorce: “And (kai—“but”)
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,
and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is
divorced commits adultery” (vs. 9). In sharp contrast to the apparent
widespread practice of divorce among the Jews of Jesus’ day, Jesus
insisted that the original will of God, going all the way back to the
beginning of the human race, was for a man and woman to remain married
to each other for life. He forthrightly declared that the only way for
that first marriage to terminate in a divorce that God approves is for
one of the spouses (the innocent party) to divorce the other (the
fornicator), solely on the ground of sexual infidelity. Jesus clarified
for all people for all time Deity’s will concerning divorce: the one and
only ground for divorce is illicit sexual intercourse. Hence, Jesus’
answer to the Pharisees’ original question (“Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife for just any reason?”) was “no.”
Endnotes
1 Fredrick Danker (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition, p. 385, italics in orig.
2 Wesley J. Perschbacher, ed. (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 167.
9 Act V, Scene iii, line 290ff. Other occurrences in Shakespeare of the use of “winked” are found in Cymbeline, V.iv.192; Hamlet, II.ii.137; Henry 5, V.ii.300; and King John, IV.ii.211. See https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/Searchresults.aspx?search=winking&WholeWordSearch=True.
11 Marvin Vincent (1946), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1:108, italics in orig.
12 No
doubt Moses did not explicitly articulate this fact in his recounting
of the events in the Garden since Adam and Eve were the only people on
Earth and, hence, incapable of committing adultery.
13 A
number of English translations demonstrate awareness of these
grammatical principles and the commencement of the apodosis at verse 4.
Among those that insert “then” at the beginning of verse 4 are the ESV,
NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, NAB, and the Geneva Bible. The CEB has “in this
case,” the CJB has “In such a case,” and the EHV has “in these
circumstances.” The EXB, GNT, ICB, and NCV have “In either case.”
14 Jack Lewis (1978), “From the Beginning It Was Not So…” in Your Marriage Can Be Great, ed. Thomas Warren (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press), p. 415.
