Speaking where the bible speaks, and silent where the bible is silent.

Biblical Proof Dec 20 2015

From the beginning, God ordained one man to stay with one woman and one woman with one man (Gen 2:24).  The two joined together becoming one flesh, one body.

Man in his sinfulness began to be involved in polygamy, adultery, and a host of other improprieties (Malachi 2:14).  Man’s heart was hardened against God’s commands and he chose to follow his own desires. “…And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. For the Lord God of Israel says “That He hates divorce…” (Mal 2:15-16).

Deuteronomy 24, dealt with the marital atrocities. In an environment where man, contrary to God’s intention for marriage, divorced his wife for any reason, God, through Moses, regulated divorce.  A woman was never allowed to divorce her husband under the law of Moses. Yet, if the husband gave her a writ of divorcement, she was at liberty to be married to another man.

Jesus states in Matthew 19:8 that Moses allowed the children of Israel to put away their wives, but that was not God’s original intent. His intent was that they stay together until death do they part (Mk 10:9).  However, Jesus does provide information in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:3-12 on the subject of marriage and remarriage. He states that putting away one’s wife was acceptable (though not desired) if fornication (adultery when in a marriage) had been committed by the wife.

Most churches of Christ, despite lack of biblical proof, declare that the wife can divorce her husband for fornication just like the man. So, how do they reach this conclusion? They first say God didn’t say she couldn’t therefore she can. When anyone with biblical knowledge challenges this as false doctrine, they have another excuse:

Those who teach such know that God gave no such commandment in the new testament, neither was their biblical example given to establish a woman’s right to divorce and remarry. Mark 10 establishes, if a man or a woman remarries after divorce, they commit adultery.  I Corinthians 7 only gives a woman the option of staying single or reconciling after divorce. Matthew 5:32; 19:9 allows the man to divorce his wife for the cause of fornication and be remarried to another. Romans 7, 2,3 and 1 Cor 7:39 establishes that a woman is bound to her husband so long as he lives, and if she divorces her husband and remarries, she shall be called an adulteress. There are no verses in the Bible with a direct commandment or approved example of a woman remarrying following a divorce.

Yet, to circumvent God’s law, man uses what they call “A Necessary Inference” to demonstrate God’s authority. Necessary inference is no more than common reasoning. For instance, Philip and the Eunuch both went down in the water, and the Eunuch was baptized. Necessary inference defines what kind of baptism was performed. They went down into the water for the purpose of baptism. Both being in the water infers immersion, and not sprinkling, for sprinkling doesn’t require anyone being in water. However, if there were a scripture which said that baptism meant sprinkling, then no necessary inference could be taken concerning baptism. For the record, no such verse exist. Thus, in this case, a necessary inference was required to biblically define baptism.

Here, however, is their great error using such reasoning in God’s marital law. They say, since God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), by necessary inference, it can be concluded that if He allows both the male and female to divorce, the same rules must apply for both sexes in remarriage. In other words, sin for the man is sin for the woman. What is allowed for the man is allowed for the woman. As the old saying goes, “What is good for the gander is good for the goose”.

All this sounds good until we find several instances in the bible where what is a sin for the woman is not a sin for man. It’s a sin for a woman to be a speaker in the churches, but not for the man (1 Cor 14:33-40).  It’s a sin for a woman to preach the word of God, but not the man (Tit 2:4-5 ff; 2 Tim 2:2 cf; 4:2-5). It’s a sin for a woman to disobey her husband, but not a sin for a man to disobey his wife (Tit 2:5 f; Eph 5:23). Woman was commanded to submit to her husband, but a husband was not commanded to submit to his wife. (Eph 5:22). It’s a sin for a woman to be a leader in the churches, but not for the man (1 Tim 3:1-13). It’s a sin for a woman to teach a man, but it is not a sin for a man to teach a woman. It’s a sin for a woman to usurp authority over the man, but not for a man to usurp authority over the woman (1 Tim 2:11,12). These examples are enough to illustrate, that God who shows no partiality, does have a different role for the man and the woman. It also illustrates what is a sin for a woman is not necessarily a sin for the man.

Thus, to conclude that a woman can divorce and remarry for the cause of fornication just like the man, absent of book, chapter and verse, breaks God’s law of marriage. Using necessary inference in the case of divorce and remarriage is perverting the Word of God. It goes beyond what God has written (1 Cor 4:6). It is not the oracles of God (1 Pet 4:11). It is adding to what God has written (Rev 22:18). Therefore, don’t trust your soul to someone who misuses the scripture by inserting their own opinion over God’s written Word. Remember, adultery is an abomination to God, and it can and will send your soul straight to hell (1 Cor 6:9,10 f; Gal 5:19-21).

Advertisements

Comments on: "Can A Woman Divorce and Remarry?" (2)

  1. Randy Lester said:

    So on a larger issue, are you saying that a necessary inference is not a way to determine scriptural authority in other cases as well?

    • As was suggested in necessary inference and how it is defined, there are cases where it is needed. However, in the case of Marriage and remarriage, God gave a law on marriage which is easy to understand and is definitive. There is nothing left unsaid. There are only things which people desire to do more than God authorized. Using supposition where God gave a law is perverting the law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: