|
Email Exchange with Brother Bobby Holmes
----- Original Message -----
From:
BHolmes180@aol.com Jeff, I am honored that you asked me to write an article for you. Before you I accept the offer I want you to know the conclusion I have reached on the many controversial issues on the subject. I do NOT believe one can put away their mate for reasons other that fornication, play a "waiting game" until the mate commits adultery and then file for divorce on the grounds of adultery. I DO believe there is a difference between this person who goes along with the divorce and then just awaits the opportunity to become the "innocent party" by then "divorcing" their mate for adultery and the mate who recognizes that marriage is for life with one exception and does all they can to make the marriage work but, their mate cares nothing for the marriage vows and files for and obtains a divorce in a court of law. If the mate who struggled to keep the marriage intact continues to honor the vows made before God, remains faithful in all things and then that mate who refused to honor that covenant that was made with God witness joins him/herself to another, I believe God holds the one who remained faithful guiltless if they remarry. The "putting away" by the one who refused to honor that binding covenant that God was witness to was but a "legal document" by the civil law that in no way can supersede the law of God. I have thought this over very carefully and i DO understand your position and the "watering down" of Gods marriage law by some who would give encouragement to those who do not respect Gods law. In the case I just described, the divorce by the dissatisfied spouse is contrary to Gods law and therefore not accepted before God. When he/she "take up" with another then the marriage bed is defiled and it is adultery. I read brother Tom Roberts response to you and believe it holds great merit. Let me know your thoughts. I respect you greatly Jeff and admire your courage. I pray you will give these simple thoughts careful consideration.
Your brother and companion
in the faith, ----- Original Message -----
From:
J Belknap Dear brother Holmes, I appreciate your honesty with me about your position and the fact that you have taken the time to study this issue out. However, to be honest myself, I am surprised and disappointed. If the mate who struggled to keep the marriage intact continues to honor the vows made before God, remains faithful in all things and then that mate who refused to honor that covenant that was made with God witness joins him/herself to another, I believe God holds the one who remained faithful guiltless if they remarry. Brother, I am trying to understand this. With all due respect, please tell me what scripture you find your differentiation in, regarding the fate of one who is put away under some circumstances, as opposed to others? In those scriptures dealing with MDR, the only differentiation in fate I can find is for the one who does the putting away, not the one who is put away. I hear so much emphasis from the brothers involved in this error about the "innocent" party, and all of the arguments surrounding this issue focus on this "innocent" mistreated person. Where does Jesus mention the innocent, except to say that her husband causes her to commit adultery when he divorces her unscripturally? Do you find any other focus at all on the innocent in any of those verses? I cannot. When I read the verses, I see a focus on the unlawfulness of divorce and the guilt (or not, as in the case of a divorce for just cause) of the one putting away. Contrariwise, the only mention of the innocent is to say that she is "put away" and thus subject to the proclamation of Jesus about the put away in Mt. 5:32b; 19:9b; Lk. 16:18, and that her husband causes her to commit adultery, when he puts her away without just cause. The "putting away" by the one who refused to honor that binding covenant that God was witness to was but a "legal document" by the civil law that in no way can supersede the law of God. Are you saying that because the civil divorce was opposed to God's law (unscriptural) that it cannot be included in what Jesus referred to in Mt. 5:32; 19:9 and Lk. 16:18 as "put away?" It seems that I Cor. 7:11 does not allow for your scenario. Brother Holmes, please be assured that I do not write these things antagonistically. I hold your preaching in high esteem and am sincerely desirous of receiving the same kind of scriptural reasoning from you on this issue that I witnessed in the lessons you preached in Chesapeake. However, now, having a more complete understanding of your views on this subject, I regret to say that I withdraw my request for you to submit an article for the web site. Nonetheless, I do look forward to your answers regarding my questions.
Brotherly, ----- Original Message -----
From:
BHolmes180@aol.com Jeff, I appreciate your reply and I will answer your questions as requested. I did not understand clearly whether you believe the one who actually FILES for the divorce has the right of remarriage. This would be the old "race to the court house" argument that certainly cannot be sustained by scripture as Jesus deals with the CAUSE of the divorce (Matt.19:9) and not the one who does the filing or "putting away." So many brethren miss this vital point of Jesus statement. In fact, it seems to me this might be where you and I are in disagreement. You asked for the scripture I use to use to sustain my argument. I use the same scripture that Jesus spoke (Matt. 19:9). Let me ask you a question. Do you believe the marriage bond is broken when a divorce is sought for by husband and wife, and gained, in a court of civil law for incompatibility? Do you not believe that the bond God bound them with still exists and therefore if either marry they commit adultery? WHY? Because the BOND REMAINS. God has NOT loosed it for there has been no God allowed cause (Matt. 19:9). The action in the civil court was but an action of man by a law that is out of harmony with God's law (Matt. 19:9). That divorce decree is but a piece of paper that is not recognized by God though by men. The difference between this position and the one I hold to is that one of the marriage partners respects the marriage law of God and the covenant they made before God and refuses to be a part of breaking up the marriage that God had ordained (Heb.13:4). When the rebelling partner produces the CAUSE that Jesus dealt with (Matt. 19:9), the innocent person has the right then to remarry (Matt. 19:9). Though the marriage was over due to the dissatisfied partner, the bond remained. Jesus stated so clearly in the text. You state you find no mention of an "innocent" party except Matt. 5:32. Surly you understand necessary inference! Matt. 19:9 uses that when Jesus states the "innocent" (necessarily inferred from which we draw a necessary conclusion) does not commit adultery if they remarry. Yes, I am saying the divorce granted in a civil law that does not harmonize with God's law does not give license for remarriage for the bond continues to exist. Only GOD can break the bond. Man indeed controls the marriage, can divorce at will for whatever reason approved or disapproved by God but, only God who made the bond can break that. 1 Cor.7:11 says nothing of a civil divorce. "If she departs, (the marriage thus ends) let her remain unmarried (no longer does a marriage relationship exist) or be reconciled to her husband (the bond still exists and therefore she still has a husband)..." Some read into it a civil divorce. It is because they do not understand that a marriage is but an agreement between a man and a woman to share bed board and life together. It may be a marriage approved by God (Rom. 7:1-2; Heb.13:4) or it may be a marriage that God does not approve of (Rom. 7:3; Mark 6:17-18). It is still called a marriage in Gods Word! Jeff, please be assured that I take no offense at your withdrawal of your offer to write an article for you. All I have ever asked of anyone is to give what I say very careful consideration to what I say and to do it in the light of Gods Word. I trust you will do that with this as well. I admire you love for Truth and your deep hatred for that which is against Divine revelation as well as despising those who would compromise Truth. Believe me when I say I hold to those same principles. I see no difference in our positions except in application. We both believe the Lord gives only one reason one can put away their mate and remarry. Leave civil law out of the question and be see alike. I am not saying civil law is not to be followed for it must be (Rom. 13:1-7) but, when civil law violates Gods law we must stand on what God has said. I pray you will always have a sincere desire for Truth and will stand thereon.
Your brother and companion
in the Faith, ----- Original Message -----
From:
J Belknap Dear brother Holmes, Thank you for your reply. However, I do not believe that you answered my questions. I did not understand clearly whether you believe the one who actually FILES for the divorce has the right of remarriage. This would be the old "race to the court house" argument that certainly cannot be sustained by scripture as Jesus deals with the CAUSE of the divorce (Matt.19:9) and not the one who does the filing or "putting away." So many brethren miss this vital point of Jesus statement. In fact, it seems to me this might be where you and I are in disagreement. Brother Holmes, I respectfully submit that there is a significant difference in FILING for divorce and "putting away." One may file, weeks later decide not to go through with the divorce and never "put away." In Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 Jesus emphasized that all unscriptural divorces were indeed divorces (although unlawful). Take away the exception clause in both of these verses and you have the exact scenario that you articulated in your last letter you sent me. Jesus stated that both the one who puts away unlawfully and the "innocent" victim of that putting away who remarries, commits adultery, which you deny. You asked for the scripture I use to use to sustain my argument. I use the same scripture that Jesus spoke (Matt. 19:9). Brother Holmes, with all due respect, Matthew 19:9 does not articulate the scenario that you mentioned in your last letter. Mt. 19:9 teaches: Marriage, Fornication, Divorce for Fornication, Remarriage.
Not: Let me ask you a question. Do you believe the marriage bond is broken when a divorce is sought for by husband and wife, and gained, in a court of civil law for incompatibility? Do you not believe that the bond God bound them with still exists and therefore if either marry they commit adultery? WHY? Because the BOND REMAINS. Brother Holmes, please consider that you are using the classic mental divorce arguments, which confuse the marriage with the bond. Of course, they are still bound by God's law after an unscriptural divorce. This is why remarriage to any other while both are alive equates to ADULTERY - cf. Rom. 7:2-3. The Lord never authorized an "innocent" put away person to "put away" and remarry if and when their estranged mate later commits adultery. Once one becomes bound by the Lord's restriction of the "put away" in Mt. 5:32b; 19:9b; and Lk. 16:18b, he is not eligible to become the one in Mt. 5:32a and 19:9a, who can put away and remarry another with God's blessing. God has NOT loosed it for there has been no God allowed cause (Matt. 19:9). The action in the civil court was but an action of man by a law that is out of harmony with God's law (Matt. 19:9). That divorce decree is but a piece of paper that is not recognized by God though by men. God has only authorized the remarriage of "another" when the chaste spouse puts away their guilty mate for fornication BEFORE the marriage has been sundered (NOT AFTER) - cf. II Tim. 2:15. The difference between this position and the one I hold to is that one of the marriage partners respects the marriage law of God and the covenant they made before God and refuses to be a part of breaking up the marriage that God had ordained (Heb.13:4). When the rebelling partner produces the CAUSE that Jesus dealt with (Matt. 19:9), the innocent person has the right then to remarry (Matt. 19:9). Where did Jesus ever authorize that a put away person could "put away" after an unscriptural divorce? You'll never find it in Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; I Cor. 7:11, 15 or anywhere else. Though the marriage was over due to the dissatisfied partner, the bond remained. I am thankful you acknowledge that the marriage is over. Paul stated that at the end of an unscriptural divorce, the two were "unmarried" (I Cor. 7:11). Mt. 5:32; 19:9; and Lk. 16:18 clearly show that this is the state of the person who is put away for a cause other than fornication. We need to call Bible things, by Bible names - cf. I P. 4:11. God's word clearly differentiates mans part in the union or dissolution of a marriage from the bond that He binds or looses, in consideration of whether either was done in accordance with His will. Nonetheless, in Mt. 5:32; 19:9; and Lk. 16:18, Jesus is only talking about man's part, as opposed to His own will in the case of an unscriptural divorce. The unscriptural divorce ("put"ting "away") is the man's sin - just aided by the civil authorities. Just as a fornicator must have cooperation by another party to commit his sin of fornication (also true with abortion - a clinic is needed), so must a man have the civil authorities' cooperation to go through with his sin of a unscriptural divorce. Just because he involves the civil authorities in his sin does not mean that God does not recognize the man's sin, just as He recognizes the fornication. And for us to recognize that man has the capacity to sin by unscripturally "put"ting "away" (through whatever means) what God has joined together is self - evident. The next necessary conclusion is that when man unscripturally does (what the Bible itself calls) "put away," then that makes the one he "put away" the "put away" who is prohibited from remarriage to another. Once the marriage is over there is no authority for subsequent "divorces." Jesus stated so clearly in the text. You state you find no mention of an "innocent" party except Matt. 5:32. Surly you understand necessary inference! Matt. 19:9 uses that when Jesus states the "innocent" (necessarily inferred from which we draw a necessary conclusion) does not commit adultery if they remarry. What I mentioned about the "innocent" party in Matthew 5:32 (and 19:9) is that some seem to place an inordinate emphasis on such a one that Jesus never placed (i.e. her ability to put away for adultery AFTER she has already been put away - if her ex-mate commits fornication). Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 only authorize the "innocent" party to put away while they are still married - BEFORE becoming the "put away." It is imperative that we get the order right. Just as Mk. 16:16 has a specific order, so does Mt. 5:32 and 19:9. Yes, I am saying the divorce granted in a civil law that does not harmonize with God's law does not give license for remarriage for the bond continues to exist. Only GOD can break the bond. Man indeed controls the marriage, can divorce at will for whatever reason approved or disapproved by God but, only God who made the bond can break that. 1 Cor.7:11 says nothing of a civil divorce. "If she departs, (the marriage thus ends) let her remain unmarried (no longer does a marriage relationship exist) or be reconciled to her husband (the bond still exists and therefore she still has a husband)..." I agree with the above statement. The question is: Where does God authorize this "innocent" put away person to some day "put away" their "husband" if and when he later commits adultery? Regardless of whether or not one is "innocent," Jesus says if a person is "put away," they cannot remarry another without committing adultery. Consider Luke 16:18: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” Here, when the unjustly put away person remarries even after the fornication of her previous spouse, she becomes guilty of adultery nonetheless. Regardless of who marries first, adultery is still the result for both when they marry "another." Some read into it a civil divorce. It is because they do not understand that a marriage is but an agreement between a man and a woman to share bed board and life together. It may be a marriage approved by God (Rom. 7:1-2; Heb.13:4) or it may be a marriage that God does not approve of (Rom. 7:3; Mark 6:17-18). It is still called a marriage in Gods Word! Brother Holmes, I am not reading "civil" divorce into anything. All I am reading is DIVORCE. However, in this country, the civil process happens to be the procedure for how we go about divorce. Nonetheless, the procedure is besides the point. Even if you want to say that the "divorce" that Jesus spoke of was not civil, but simply a repudiation - whatever the procedure is, it has ALREADY BEEN DONE to the innocent party. Once one HAS BEEN (past tense) repudiated, there is absolutely no authority for her to repudiate. Jesus stated that people who HAVE BEEN (past tense) divorced (or repudiated by the definition of some) may not remarry (while their ex-mate is alive) without committing adultery. It is really very simple to read and understand. Jeff, please be assured that I take no offense at your withdrawal of your offer to write an article for you. All I have ever asked of anyone is to give what I say very careful consideration to what I say and to do it in the light of Gods Word. I trust you will do that with this as well. I admire you love for Truth and your deep hatred for that which is against Divine revelation as well as despising those who would compromise Truth. Brother Holmes, I assure you that I do not despise those who compromise truth. I only despise their doctrine. Contrariwise, it is because of my love for the souls of these men and the souls of others who may be carried away with that erroneous doctrine that I have expended so much of my time and energy in an effort to expose this error. Believe me when I say I hold to those same principles. I see no difference in our positions except in application. Brother Holmes, with all due respect, you do not "hold" the same "principle" as I, for I believe that what Jesus set forth, in no uncertain terms, "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" is a principle and command by which we will be judged. It gives me no pleasure to say that what you are advocating denies what the Lord has clearly set forth in HIS MDR law. We both believe the Lord gives only one reason one can put away their mate and remarry. Leave civil law out of the question and be see alike. I am not saying civil law is not to be followed for it must be (Rom. 13:1-7) but, when civil law violates Gods law we must stand on what God has said. I pray you will always have a sincere desire for Truth and will stand thereon. Jesus acknowledged that men would obtain unlawful divorces. In such cases, Jesus stated that "whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Mt. 19:9). Thus, the necessary inference is: those "innocent" parties would be included in those who Jesus said (in verse 12) would "...be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Unfortunately, not everyone will receive it. Dear brother Holmes, the following materials (regarded as sound for many years) clearly and absolutely condemn your present position. If you haven't studied them, I beg you to please do so.
Divorce &
Remarriage; What Does The Text Say?,
by Donnie Rader,
Is It
Lawful?
A Comprehensive Study of Divorce
By Dennis G. Allan and Gary Fisher, Marriage is Honorable (by Gene Frost) Mental Marriages and Mental Divorces (by Gene Frost). I know that the writings of men are not an authority on this issue or any other one. However, do you know of any studies that articulate your "application," which are esteemed as are the above listed materials? It seems curious to me that some can contend for such a position as if it were widely accepted and recognized as truth, but the subject is taboo in the "sound" publications. If what you and the other men I have named on the web site is truth, then it should be proclaimed openly so that we can be taught "the way of the Lord more perfectly." Don't you agree? I believe the articles on my website entitled "Mental Divorce, Revamped and Revisited, Part II" and "God's Rights Nullified by Man's Wrongs" more thoroughly outline our differences. I pray that you will take the time to read and consider them, brother. I hope that I have not come off as disrespectful or arrogant, for I know that God would not be pleased with such. I hold you in high esteem, however, this is an extremely serious matter with me, since I believe eternal souls are at stake.
Brotherly, ----- Original Message -----
From:
BHolmes180@aol.com
Dear brother Belknap, Let me just start over from the beginning as to my position. I will try to address your points after this. FIRST off, I have always preached, and still do, ONE man for ONE woman for LIFE with ONE exception. I believe that fornication is the ONLY reason one may put away their mate and then remarry. Whether you address it or not, there are many issues that are matters of application and thus, perimeter issues. These do not change the law the Lord gave. I had a discussion with some in the state of Washington that thought the man could divorce his wife for fornication but, not the wife the husband for Jesus said "if a MAN put away his wife...." Another took the position that marriage was for life and if you put away your mate for fornication you could never remarry per Rom. 7:1-3. Page one, your third paragraph you state, and I agree, "In Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 Jesus emphasized that all unscriptural divorces were indeed divorces ((although unlawful)....." The Book also states that all unscriptural marriages are indeed marriages although unlawful (Mark 6:17-18; Rom. 7:3). I DO NOT preach nor do I teach people to play a "waiting game." I have never changed my position through the years that I stated above. I do believe, however, that the mate who does not want a divorce, stands firm against it, remains faithful to the vows made before God but, the mate does not honor the vows and divorces their mate anyway through the civil laws available, I do not believe that divorce to be anymore lawful before God than the unlawful marriage is lawful before God (Mark 6:17-18). I have not found in Gods Word any time where God has penalized the faithful for being faithful. Your position assigns the innocent party to a life without hope because they remained faithful to the marriage vows. When that mate who put the innocent party away involves themselves sexually with someone else, the one who remained faithful has the right (though it would be their choice) to remarry without being guilty of fornication. Let me say clearly that I do not encourage this scenario. It would be a rare one for sure. I fact, I personally have not come across one in my almost fifty years of preaching. This question was raised by I do not know who since it is so rare. You state in paragraph 5 that Matt. 19:9 does not articulate the scenario mentioned in my letter. I believe it does. What is missed by so many is the difference between "marriage" and the "bond." Marriage is the agreement between man and woman either approved by God or unapproved by God. They (man and woman) control the marriage but, only God controls the bond. In 1 Cor. 7:10-11 the marriage has been broken (divorce) but the bond remains. There would be no need for the two to go through another marriage ceremony. The marriage is over but the way back together is through reconciliation. There is no indication the divorce here has been a "civil court" case. The word divorce itself simply means "to send away, send out of the house, put away." The divorce decree in the civil courts is but a document that gives protection regarding certain rights. In the O.T. God said if a man decided he did not want his wife he is to "...write her a bill of divorcement" and "..send her away.." When a man or woman leaves the home with intentions of ending the marriage, that marriage is then over. The bond remains though the marriage is over (1 Cor.7:10-11). That is why the passage says ".. let her remain unmarried" (the marriage is over) "or be reconciled to her husband" (the bond remains). There is to be a continued effort for reconciliation on the part of the innocent but, if the one who left (broke up the marriage that man controls) then involves themselves sexually with another, then that innocent party has the right to remarry another (Matt. 19:9). The "divorce" that was obtained in a civil court was no more recognized than the marriage in a civil court where the marriage is not approved by God. The divorce that is not recognized by God gives the innocent party the right to remarry. My position agrees with the Lords. Marriage, Fornication, divorce for fornication, Remarriage. No, I do not believe that "fornication" or "adultery" must be on the papers but, I DO believe the divorce God recognizes must be for fornication. When you recognize the "putting away" takes place by man and not the civil law, you will understand my point. On page four you state in the first paragraph that Jesus refers to those who had to make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heavens sake. You misunderstand the passage. Jesus states the marriage law, the disciples do not understand why one would marry, that it would be better not to do so under the strict law Jesus gave and state (verse 10) "His disciples said to him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." The next verse says Jesus says to them, "..All cannot accept this says, but only those to whom it is given..." WHAT saying?? Certainly NOT the "saying" of Jesus regarding the marriage law for all CAN accept it. Some just don't! The "saying" Jesus refers to is the saying the disciples just stated regarding celibacy. It would be better then not to marry. Jesus then speaks of the various ways and reasons some are eunuchs. Paul was a eunuch for the kingdom of Heavens sake. He did it to be free to preach without the burdens that come about at times with having a mate to be concerned about (1 Cor. 7:32-33, 35). Your position would force one into a position God has not required. Jeff, there are other things we could discuss concerning our differences but, I feel I have explained my position clearly and as I found you to be a very intelligent, honest and reasonable person I am confident you will give me a fair hearing. Please be assured that I feel absolutely no animosity toward you and you certainly did not come across as arrogant or disrespectful. I appreciate you wanting to make that clear. I thank you for your kind words regarding your impression of me. Believe me when I say I try to be exactly what God wants me to be. I do not try to please any man and have never tried to do so. I DO try to please my Savior and work at it hard every day. Please don't catalog me with those who advocate the "waiting game" to remarry. Please just try to understand, first, I do not promote the position I believe in publicly for fear some might try to "reason in themselves" out of what God has taught and thus play the "waiting game" for real. Though I myself would never remarry if I was in such a position, I would have no problem in my fellowship with one who is described in my position. I believe there to be a safe way that cannot be wrong and would take it. As I said, on the other hand I would not reject one who is as I described. All I ask of you Jeff is to be fair when you speak to others of my position. I believe there is a clear difference between my position and the "waiting game." If you cannot see it, I will accept that but, don't class me with those with whom I do not belong. I pray your work for the Lord will be prosperous and that God will bless you and your richly as you walk with Him from whom all blessings flow.
In brotherly love,
----- Original Message -----
From:
J Belknap Dear brother Holmes, Thank you for replying and the demeanor you exhibited in your letter. My comments regarding points in your last letter are below, in blue. Dear brother Belknap, Let me just start over from the beginning as to my position. I will try to address your points after this. FIRST off, I have always preached, and still do, ONE man for ONE woman for LIFE with ONE exception. I believe that fornication is the ONLY reason one may put away their mate and then remarry. Whether you address it or not, there are many issues that are matters of application and thus, perimeter issues. The defense given by you (and others who defend fellowship with this “application”) is that it is in agreement with the essential Biblical principle—Marriage is for one man and one woman for life, the only exception being that an innocent mate may put away a spouse guilty of fornication and have a right to marry another. While that is a principle which even those who oppose you agree to, there are crucial differences among us as to the definitions of "mate" and "spouse" within that stated principle. [If our ability to fellowship one another were based upon agreement with the statement that "the sky is blue," we could both agree to that. But, what if you knew that my definition of the word "blue" was what you know to actually be green. What if I brought a material swatch of deep green fabric around to Christians and told them, "the sky is blue like this swatch?" It is evident that under such circumstances, we could not be united.] I think most Christians would agree that a "mate" or "spouse" is a person to whom one is (presently) married. The reasoning that you have given in support of your position indicates a belief that when an innocent, faithful mate has been unscripturally divorced by a mate, they remain a "mate" or "spouse" to the one who had already put them away. (If I am wrong about your belief in that regard, please correct me.) I readily acknowledge that in an unscriptural divorce God has not loosed what He bound, however, the innocent is still the "put away" (or "put asunder" one) and subject to the restrictions of the put away. Because they are now what the Bible calls "unmarried" and are the recipient of the unscriptural "putting away" described in Mt. 5:32a; 19:9a; and Lk. 16:18a, they are what the Bible calls "put away" in Mt. 5:32b; 19:9b and Lk. 16:18b. They are no longer "spouse" or "mate" to anyone, although they are bound by God's law that says remarriage by either party in the divorce would result in adultery (Rom. 7:2-3). The Biblical principle (as stated above, without redefinitions) does not allow for a person who has been PUT AWAY - whether innocent or not, to “divorce” their EX-mate when the fornication is committed after they have been put away (cf. I Cor. 7:11, 15). These do not change the law the Lord gave. I had a discussion with some in the state of Washington that thought the man could divorce his wife for fornication but, not the wife the husband for Jesus said "if a MAN put away his wife...." Another took the position that marriage was for life and if you put away your mate for fornication you could never remarry per Rom. 7:1-3. Page one, your third paragraph you state, and I agree, "In Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 Jesus emphasized that all unscriptural divorces were indeed divorces ((although unlawful)....." The Book also states that all unscriptural marriages are indeed marriages although unlawful (Mark 6:17-18; Rom. 7:3). Yes, I agree. But the fact is that God recognizes that they are married, albeit sinfully, just as the Lord recognizes in Mt. 5:32b; 19:9b and Lk. 16:18b that the person who was unscripturally put away (as in Mt. 5:32a; 19:9a and Lk. 16:18a) is what He called "put away" and bound by the restrictions he placed on those who are put away. Where did Jesus ever speak of or imply that "If the mate who struggled to keep the marriage intact continues to honor the vows made before God, remains faithful in all things and then that mate who refused to honor that covenant that was made with God witness joins him/herself to another, I believe God holds the one who remained faithful guiltless if they remarry" (your letter dated 11-5-01). Dear brother Holmes, this is absolutely arbitrary! In I Cor. 7:11, 15; it is necessarily inferred that the Christian who suffered the injustice of an unscriptural divorce would remain "faithful in all things," yet they are not authorized to participate in the options you have articulated above. Not only does your above argument invade the silence of God's Word (law; cf. Col. 3:17; I Pet. 4:11), but it approves what the Master has specifically prohibited (Mt. 5:32b; 19:9b; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; cp. w. II Pet. 2:1; Jude 4). Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 only authorize the "innocent" party in a marriage to put away their (present) mate while they are still married. No passage gives one who is "put away" the authority to change their status from the one who is "put away" into the one who "puts away." It is imperative that we get the order right (Isa. 8:20). Just as Mk. 16:16 has a specific order, so does Mt. 5:32 and 19:9. “…Whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Lk. 16:18; cf. Mt. 5:32; 19:9). How could the Lord have made it any plainer (Prov. 8:9)? I DO NOT preach nor do I teach people to play a "waiting game." I have never changed my position through the years that I stated above. I do believe, however, that the mate who does not want a divorce, stands firm against it, remains faithful to the vows made before God but, the mate does not honor the vows and divorces their mate anyway through the civil laws available, I do not believe that divorce to be anymore lawful before God than the unlawful marriage is lawful before God (Mark 6:17-18). Dear brother Holmes, again, this is absolutely ARBITRARY! I agree, the unscriptural divorce is not "lawful before God." Moreover, NO unscriptural divorce is "lawful before God." However, Jesus has revealed in no uncertain terms that there are some unfortunate consequences that fall on those who, despite their faithfulness, have been sinned against in many realms, including MDR. Those who unjustly put away their "innocent" mates cause them to "commit adultery" (Mt. 5:32). Just as drunk drivers cause "innocent" people to suffer the rest of their days on earth, so do many other sinners cause "innocent" people to suffer in various ways. In I Cor. 7:11, 15; it is necessarily inferred that the Christian who suffered the injustice of an unscriptural divorce would remain "faithful to the vows" (I Cor. 7:11), yet they are NOT authorized to participate in the options you have articulated above. I Cor. 7:11 was written for faithful Christians whose ungodly spouses chose not to remain married to them. I have not found in Gods Word any time where God has penalized the faithful for being faithful. Where has anyone said (or implied) that "God has penalized the faithful for being faithful"? Brother Holmes, with all due respect, that emotional perspective is an unjust indictment against God. If He has not authorized an "innocent" put away person to remarry, is it right to claim that in so doing, He is "penalizing the faithful for being faithful"? We recognize that children in abusive homes and wives with selfish and cruel husbands are to be in submission, though treated unfairly (Ephesians 6:1; I Peter 3:1-6). The plight of a person who must become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake is no different (Matthew 19:12). Yet, God has no more “sanctioned” the mistreatment of the child or wife than he has authorized an unscriptural divorce. Nevertheless, the dire consequences are often inescapable for the innocent parties involved. We cannot charge God with "penalizing" these wives and children for their act of obedience and submission to both God and man because their circumstances so dictated. The fault is squarely upon the shoulders of the sinful man who mistreats his family. Likewise, when we carefully study God’s law in Matthew 5:32, we find that the departing spouse (not God) is the one who treats their mate unfairly by causing them to commit adultery upon remarriage (cf. Matthew 18:7). This remains true, regardless of whether the departing spouse commits fornication after the divorce is final, or whether he remains unmarried. Your position assigns the innocent party to a life without hope because they remained faithful to the marriage vows. Just because an "innocent" / "faithful" person may not remarry due to unfortunate circumstances, he or she is not automatically bound "to a life without hope." Have we forgotten that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond that which we are able? (Contrariwise, if one takes the advice of some, remarrying when bound to another, this would truly sentence her to a life without hope - not merely in this life, but eternally.) What about the faithful wife whose husband leaves home never to return or who becomes an MIA or POW? What about the criminal husband sent to jail for 50 years? Is his wife also bound "to a life without hope" because she may not remarry? And who is responsible for such an injustice? What about the faithful wife whose husband becomes a drug addict and has no interest in kindness or intimacy? Is she also bound "to a life without hope"? God's law is God's law, and men and women are to seek His righteousness, not the pleasure or satisfaction of the flesh. Sin is the cause of these injustices, not God's law which tells us how we must respond to them. Heaven will be worth it all! Furthermore, we must NEVER forget the promises of the ALMIGHTY in I Cor. 10:13; Phil. 4:13 and Eph. 3:20. God will provide us with all our needs if we will only trust in HIM, not in the flesh (Phil. 3:3; Isa. 8:20). When that mate who put the innocent party away involves themselves sexually with someone else, the one who remained faithful has the right (though it would be their choice) to remarry without being guilty of fornication. Let me say clearly that I do not encourage this scenario. It would be a rare one for sure. Brother Ron Halbrook also contended that the incidence of this scenario is rare, which makes it ironic that he would discuss what he perceived to be such a non-issue with so many. However, if the argumentation that you (and Ron) offer to support your position is accepted by brethren, there will be no consistently recognizable dividing line to determine which unscripturally "put away" people are really "put away" and bound by Mt. 5:32b; 19:9b and Lk. 16:18b and which have the "hope" of scripturally remarrying another. Those who come after us will demand consistency and the only way to deliver it will be to agree that no unscripturally divorced person is truly "put away." I fact, I personally have not come across one in my almost fifty years of preaching. This question was raised by I do not know who since it is so rare. Unfortunately, I have personal knowledge of a local brother who is in this exact situation. Furthermore, even with my relatively limited associations, I know of two other preachers who are presently facing this scenario in the congregation where they preach, as well. I also know of a church from which a deacon recently had to withdraw membership after finding that one of the elder’s sons has remarried under similar circumstances, when the elders sought to defend the man’s present adulterous relationship. Moreover, it is evident that this is a circumstance that Jesus knew would exist, since He thoroughly taught on it (cf. Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; et. al). You state in paragraph 5 that Matt. 19:9 does not articulate the scenario mentioned in my letter. I believe it does. What is missed by so many is the difference between "marriage" and the "bond." Marriage is the agreement between man and woman either approved by God or unapproved by God. They (man and woman) control the marriage but, only God controls the bond. In 1 Cor. 7:10-11 the marriage has been broken (divorce) but the bond remains. There would be no need for the two to go through another marriage ceremony. It is because two people are still "bound" by God to each other AFTER an unscriptural divorce that God has stated that they may not remarry without committing adultery while their estranged partner lives (Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3). I Corinthians 7:11 says that when put away, they are now "unmarried." Therefore their ONLY options are to "reconcile" to one another or REMAIN "unmarried." Where is the innocent party authorized to some day remarry if and when the person who put them away commits adultery? With all due respect, I am asking for a book, chapter and verse; a "thus sayeth the Lord!" Now, for the last sentence from the above. It seems to me that there is a difference between "reconcile" to one another or REMAIN "unmarried." The passage says, "let her remain unmarried OR be reconciled to her husband," (emp. mine). However, you seem to be telling me that they can "reconcile" and REMAIN "unmarried" by "reconciling." I thought a marriage ceremony was the procedure by which unmarried people became married. However, if one can have mental divorces, it only follows that they can have mental marriages as well! Whatever happened to obeying the laws of the land as part of God's will (Rom. 13:1-7; Tit. 3:1; I Pet. 2:13). Whatever happened to "providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men" (II Cor. 8:21)? This new thinking throws all decency and order (I Cor. 14:40) into complete chaos (I Cor. 14:33). If this kind of reasoning is accepted and there is no socially prescribed and recognizable way to marry and divorce, how could we ever know whom we must avoid as adulterers? Scripture clearly teaches that for us to fellowship those in adultery is sin and will condemn our souls to eternal death. So this is not just an issue for a few rare people, it affects the souls of all who fellowship the people in those rare cases, as well. The marriage is over but the way back together is through reconciliation. There is no indication the divorce here has been a "civil court" case. I never said it had to be a "'civil court' case." Each society has various ways to marry and / or divorce. All I am saying is, whatever the accepted and recognized procedure is for you in the society where you live - that defines who is married and who is divorced. The word divorce itself simply means "to send away, send out of the house, put away." Brother Holmes, even if we agreed upon this definition of what “divorce” really entails, by this definition, the innocent put away person would already have been repudiated or sent out of the house even BEFORE the civil courts approved of the sinful action. Don't people who file for divorce first repudiate their spouse or put them out of the house? Their very act of filing for the divorce indicates their repudiation of that mate. No matter what we boil the definition of “divorce” or “put away” down to, once that procedure (whether putting out of the house, civil divorce or jumping over a broom handle backwards) has been enacted against a mate, they have been put away. While it is clear that they have not been “loosed” from God’s restrictions, it is also clear that they have been put away or put out of the house in the sense that the Bible speaks of as “put away” in Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b and Luke 16:18b, and are thus bound by the restrictions Jesus imposed on the “put away.” If I were to agree (for the sake of argumentation) that the Bible’s reference to “divorce” means no more than a repudiation or to be put out of the house, would that agreement solve our differences? Or would you then suggest that I am arguing for “a race to send one’s spouse out of the house?” Indeed, I believe our controversy is not really with what procedure constitutes a putting away. The core issue (behind the mental divorce doctrine) is the belief that an innocent mate cannot be (what the Bible calls) “put away” without their consent. The divorce decree in the civil courts is but a document that gives protection regarding certain rights. In the O.T. God said if a man decided he did not want his wife he is to "...write her a bill of divorcement" and "..send her away.." When a man or woman leaves the home with intentions of ending the marriage, that marriage is then over. The bond remains though the marriage is over (1 Cor.7:10-11). That is why the passage says ".. let her remain unmarried" (the marriage is over) "or be reconciled to her husband" (the bond remains). There is to be a continued effort for reconciliation on the part of the innocent but, if the one who left (broke up the marriage that man controls) then involves themselves sexually with another, then that innocent party has the right to remarry another (Matt. 19:9). Brother Holmes, I respectfully submit that in those verses, such a scenario cannot be found! If people can "remarry" at any time (before or after being divorced), because of the "fornication" of the person they are bound to, why does it matter who secured the first divorce? What scripture articulates that this "right" is only extended to the one who didn't pursue the "civil" divorce? The "divorce" that was obtained in a civil court was no more recognized than the marriage in a civil court where the marriage is not approved by God. An unscriptural divorce may not have been "approved," but it certainly was "recognized," just as God recognized (but not approved) that people marry without scriptural approval. In I Corinthians 7:10-11, the unauthorized divorce resulted in each individual being “unmarried.” Moreover, in verse 15, when a unscriptural divorce is carried out against the innocent party, we learn that something significant (in God’s eyes) has transpired. The faithful person, whose spouse “departs” unlawfully, is now given a divine reprieve from his/her (physical) marital obligations. Why? The physical marriage has been severed. However, no scripture is found anywhere for remarriage to another after an unscriptural divorce has taken place, because of the remaining bond, not because of a remaining marriage. In the same context, verse 39 plainly states that the woman is bound by the law as long as her original spouse lives. Moreover, in Romans 7:2-3, the woman is said to be bound by God’s law (spiritually obligated) to her first husband while unscripturally married (physically) to another. It just so happens that brother Gene Frost has an article in Gospel Truths this mouth entitled "The Case For 'Mental Divorce.'" In the eleventh paragraph he deals with your argumentation and writes: "To strengthen his position he resorts to further equivocation. He so uses the word 'recognize.' Will God 'recognize' an unlawful divorce, meaning 'will God acknowledge with a show of approval an unlawful divorce?' All respond, no. Shifting from this definition to 'avow knowledge of,' he then concludes that God does not admit that the unlawful 'divorce' is a divorce at all. Therefore the unlawful 'divorce' is not divorce at all and 'divorce' is used only accommodatively! The theorist uses his equivocation to misrepresent the opposition. If one says that God recognizes (has knowledge of, views) a divorce as a putting away, even though He may not approve of it, the theorist will counter, 'Then you are saying that God approves, honors, accepts all divorces!' And this is a false charge. But with those who do not detect his equivocation, the charge appears to be legitimate. Such subtlety is hardly honest, and exposes him as one who is set upon defending a prejudiced conclusion" (emp. his). At the conclusion of his article, brother Frost wrote: "The theorist argues from what he thinks is 'implied,' in defiance of what is said. The argument, as with the concept, is born of a desire to circumvent the Lord's teaching. It is the product of wishful thinking rather than sound exegesis" (emp. his). The divorce that is not recognized by God gives the innocent party the right to remarry. My position agrees with the Lords. Marriage, Fornication, divorce for fornication, Remarriage. When does God ever fail to "recognize" a divorce (lawful or not)? In Mt. 5:32a; 19:9a and Lk. 16:18a, the Lord himself indicates his recognition (though not approval) of an unscriptural divorce, when He clearly called an unscriptural divorce "put away." That is the action God recognizes as the action which makes an innocent person in the 2nd halves of those verses "put away" and unable to remarry another without becoming guilty of fornication themselves. Though you don't acknowledge it, the REALITY of your scenario is: Marriage, Divorce, Fornication, Mental Divorce for fornication by the "innocent," then Remarriage by the "innocent" put away person. No, I do not believe that "fornication" or "adultery" must be on the papers but, I DO believe the divorce God recognizes must be for fornication. When you recognize the "putting away" takes place by man and not the civil law, you will understand my point. On page four you state in the first paragraph that Jesus refers to those who had to make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heavens sake. You misunderstand the passage. Jesus states the marriage law, the disciples do not understand why one would marry, that it would be better not to do so under the strict law Jesus gave and state (verse 10) "His disciples said to him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." The next verse says Jesus says to them, "..All cannot accept this says, but only those to whom it is given..." WHAT saying?? Certainly NOT the "saying" of Jesus regarding the marriage law for all CAN accept it. Some just don't! The "saying" Jesus refers to is the saying the disciples just stated regarding celibacy. It would be better then not to marry. Jesus then speaks of the various ways and reasons some are eunuchs. Paul was a eunuch for the kingdom of Heavens sake. He did it to be free to preach without the burdens that come about at times with having a mate to be concerned about (1 Cor. 7:32-33, 35). Your position would force one into a position God has not required. My dear brother, when you accept that it is possible for an innocent spouse to be put away unscripturally (as outlined in Mt. 5:32b; 19:9b and Lk. 16:18b), then it is obvious that they are "force"d into a position of celibacy (as long as the ex-mate lives) which God has required. In addition, what about the put away fornicator (Mt. 19:9) who desires to later repent? Are you saying that they are not included in those who Jesus said "...have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Mt. 19:12)? What about the put away person who is later converted, but has no lawful right to remarry "another" (Mt. 19:9)? Are you saying that they are not included in those who Jesus said "...have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake"? Jeff, there are other things we could discuss concerning our differences but, I feel I have explained my position clearly and as I found you to be a very intelligent, honest and reasonable person I am confident you will give me a fair hearing. Please be assured that I feel absolutely no animosity toward you and you certainly did not come across as arrogant or disrespectful. I appreciate you wanting to make that clear. I thank you for your kind words regarding your impression of me. Believe me when I say I try to be exactly what God wants me to be. I am grateful that we have been able to discuss this issue without any ungodliness employed by either side. Unfortunately, I haven't always experienced this treatment in recent months, and I appreciate your kind manner in addressing our differences. I do not try to please any man and have never tried to do so. I DO try to please my Savior and work at it hard every day. I have no reason to question what you have stated above. However, I'm sure that we have both preached many sermons that articulate that sincerity and a good conscience alone does not mean that we're right with God. Cornelius, Saul of Tarsus and many others could be cited who were at one time sincerely deceived. I pray that you will look back at the verses you cited with the things I have stated about them. Do those verses really state what you have said? If not, please make the proper corrections! Please don't catalog me with those who advocate the "waiting game" to remarry. Please just try to understand, first, I do not promote the position I believe in publicly for fear some might try to "reason in themselves" out of what God has taught and thus play the "waiting game" for real. I have never catalogued anyone who holds to your position as one who advocates "the 'waiting game.'" I have charged them with advocating "mental divorce" and a "second putting away," but never "the 'waiting game.'" Nevertheless I do believe that your position will, by necessary conclusion, inevitably lead to advocacy for "the waiting game." I am sure that you would not be the one to advocate it, but others who will have accepted your reasoning will eventually demand consistency, which can only be attained by loosening God's law even further (when one unscriptural idea is accepted, it rarely ends in rethinking the initial departure, but most often winds up in further loosing to effect more consistency). Though I myself would never remarry if I was in such a position, I would have no problem in my fellowship with one who is described in my position. I believe there to be a safe way that cannot be wrong and would take it. As I said, on the other hand I would not reject one who is as I described. Ed Harrell, Bob Owen, Harry Pickup Jr. and many others voiced disagreement with, and would NOT even teach Homer Hailey's doctrine, yet they stated that they could fellowship him too. But brother Holmes, when it comes to adultery, our salvation depends every bit as much upon who we fellowship (I Cor. 5:1-9) as upon what we practice ourselves. Moreover, if your position is indeed sound exegesis, you could engage in it yourself, for it would be "safe" and "cannot be wrong." With all due respect, if you are not 100% sure that your position is a "safe way that cannot be wrong," then as a fellow teacher of God's word, I implore you not to share it with others (Jas. 3:1; Rom. 14:23). All I ask of you Jeff is to be fair when you speak to others of my position. I believe there is a clear difference between my position and the "waiting game." If you cannot see it, I will accept that but, don't class me with those with whom I do not belong. I promise you that I will be absolutely fair when I speak to others of your position. I will not accuse you of belief in the waiting game. In fact, the fairest way to represent a man is to reveal his very own words in their context, and I have sought to use this impartial method to represent all whom I have addressed. As far as I am concerned, that's the only way to be "fair." In Searching the Scriptures, November 1985 issue, Brother Weldon Warnock articulated similar arguments to yours. Later, brother Connie Adams made the following statement: "It is my conviction that there are only three classes of people who have a right to marry: (1) those who have never been married: (2) those whose companions are dead; and (3) those who have put away a companion for the cause of fornication. It appears to me that any attempt to find authority for anyone else to marry, must trade on the silence of the scriptures. I realize that brother Warnock's illustration involves fornication but is after the fact of divorce and not before. It is very difficult for me to see how this is not in reality the 'waiting game' for one waits until the other sins and then claims scriptural cause. I am also made to wonder if we may have the 'mental divorce' then why not at the other end of the marriage have a 'mental marriage' before the fact of social and legal requirements being met. Indeed, is this not the very thing claimed by those who insist that two people may cohabit as long as they have a 'meaningful relationship' and plan to get married anyhow?" (emp. jhb) - Searching the Scriptures, February issue, 1986. I pray your work for the Lord will be prosperous and that God will bless you and your richly as you walk with Him from whom all blessings flow.
In brotherly love, Brother Holmes, I pray the same for you! However, I regret that I cannot presently bid you God speed while you continue to hold to your present MDR position (Rom. 16:17-18; II Jn. 9-11; Eph. 5:11). In my last letter, I recommended the following materials (regarded as sound for many years) and once again encourage you to study them. These writings clearly and absolutely condemn your present position. If you haven't studied them, I beg you to please do so.
Divorce &
Remarriage; What Does The Text Say?,
by Donnie Rader,
Is
It Lawful?
A Comprehensive Study of Divorce
By Dennis G. Allan and Gary Fisher, Marriage is Honorable (by Gene Frost) Mental Marriages and Mental Divorces (by Gene Frost).
In
brotherly love, There were no other letters sent after this one (11-17-01) as of the date this was posted. NOTE:
Brethren,
although brother Holmes seems to go further with his “application” than
some others do, ALL of the brethren I have exposed on this website
strongly defend “fellowship” with one another. |
|