|
AN EXCERPT FROM THE ATHENS, GA DISCUSSION
The following is
an excerpt from what Ron Halbrook and Matt Renfrow verbalized on
DAVID MCKEE: But getting back to the divorce itself, you just defined an unscriptural divorce as just what that one fellow did. It does not engage the other party, that she’s not divorced at that point?
RON HALBROOK: She is not dissolved from that marriage bond, or released from that marriage bond. It’s still there.
DAVID MCKEE: Yes, we would agree on that, which is why it makes it adultery for her and him. But would you say she has been divorced at that point, when he divorces her, when the judge slams the gavel down, “I’ve said this on a case,” he has divorced her. Is she now divorced?
RON HALBROOK: In an unscriptural, ungodly, rebellious sense, that man has a divorce paper. But I don’t see it as changing anything in divine law.
DAVID MCKEE: No, and I don’t either. That’s why I think the other passages will say, “and he who marries her who is divorced.” That’s why it’s adultery, as well, because she’s still tied to that unfaithful fellow that put her away, and he’s still tied to her in this bond.
MATT RENFROW : But you would take away that exception, at that point.
DAVID MCKEE: Well, the exception was there when the first divorced occurred, which is the only divorce Jesus speaks of.
MATT RENFROW : The only time the exception can be instilled?
DAVID MCKEE: Is that what Jesus says in Matthew 19 and 9, or in other places? “If you divorce and it is not for this reason, here’s what the two of you are: you’re in a state where you are to be reconciled, or any remarrying is adultery.” But to say that divorce can occur and it wasn’t for that reason, but now, here are grounds that will allow for some kind of future divorce. That we’re still in the works of defining and making something that can really happen. I don’t see the Bible language that speaks of it. |
|