A Review Of "Marriage, Divorce, And Remarriage" - (No. I)
Background
It has been said that the historic role of practical religion has been to follow the morality of the people, presenting a moral standard just above the common practice but dipping and rising with the common will, instead of maintaining an absolute level and prevailing upon the common practice to accept it, How generally true this is! In our life-time we have seen the moral level of our nation plunge, followed meekly by the sectarian world with new laws, creeds, and decisions to accommodate the changing conduct. Instead of maintaining the moral level as set forth by divine revelation, in recent years the will of the people has prevailed to permit dancing, social drinking, easy divorce, and worldliness of every description in the denominational churches. The same pressures are being brought to bear upon the Lord's church, and the question is more than academic: will the church of God succumb to worldly pressures to attempt to modify the will of God so as to justify the worldly practices which describe the lives of so many of its members? In the past few years efforts have been expended in this direction.
This is not to suggest that all who have argued for particular moral doctrines in favor of some social changes have done so with a desire to accommodate the worldly minded. We do raise the question, however, as to whether a study of the Bible has dictated all such teaching or whether the social problems we encounter have influenced the study and consequently the teaching. That the moral tenor of the church has been affected by our worldly environment is beyond denial. And, lest we find ourselves studying to justify our desires, we need to take note of this trend, and determine to know, and to teach, and to demand of ourselves the moral standard that the Lord wills, regardless of how far removed the world about us may be. Let us not compromise the will of God to accommodate the world, but let us draw those who will respect divine authority to the high plane of morality as taught by revelation of God.
.Among the social problems in our nation, and one that is seriously affecting the morality of our people, is the impermanency of marriage. Free love and easy divorce is the advocacy of the modernist philosophy now permeating our society. Consequently the divorce rate continues to rise. As those involved turn their thoughts to God and desire forgiveness of sins, the marriage status becomes a matter of concern: may they remain in a relationship that was created and is maintained in defiance of God's law? Regardless of the motivation, within the last few years numerous theories have been advanced to justify a continuation of these relationships established contrary to the will of God. It is our purpose to review in this paper the latest such to come to our attention.
Its Advocate
Published in a tract entitled, "Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage," brother Lloyd Moyer has set forth a position representative of a number of teachers in the church. It gives me no pleasure to oppose brother Moyer in his teaching. We have been close friends through the years, with mutual love for the cause of Christ. We have fought together, each moderating for the other on the polemic field. It is a sad experience to find us facing one another on this issue. Yet if by an exchange of thoughts, I may assist him, and others to discover the faults of the theory. I will be happy that the battle was joined. (And he no doubt feels the same concern for me.) By this the reader may know that no animosity is felt, that this is not a clash of personalities, but is a sincere effort to elicit truth.
The Theory At A Glance
Brother Moyer teaches that there are three elements of marriage and that all three are subject to man: (1) the vow, (2) civil sanction, and (3) consummation. (The theory overlooks the divine element, as we shall note.) When these three elements are present, marriage is established. When the three are violated or removed, the marriage is dissolved. Consequently when a man puts away his wife (without Scriptural cause) he changes (2) the civil sanction. But the marriage is intact until (1) the vow and (3) the physical relationship is violated. In consummating the new marriage, he violates (1) the vow and (3) the physical relationship of the former mate. The first sexual act is adulterous because the first marriage was not yet dissolved, but by it is dissolved. He then concludes that subsequent intercourse is not adulterous because the first intercourse dissolved the former marriage and established the second. Two quotations show this concept:
"Though adultery was committed when they first joined themselves together in intercourse because they were still husband or wife of someone else, subsequent intercourse between them is not adultery. They are no longer the husband or wife of someone else....And by this sin of adultery they caused their previous marriage to be dissolved.
"We have shown that they would have committed adultery when they first became joined in sexual intercourse. However, we have shown also that by that very act of adultery the first marriage was defiled, adulterated and therefore dissolved.... Subsequent sexual intercourse would not be adultery."
The theory affirms then that in the act of adultery, when preceded by civil sanction, a marriage is dissolved and a marriage is established. Yes, adultery joins two persons, married to someone else, together in lawful wedlock. And God looks upon this adulterous act, a part of an unholy maneuver, and accepts the results: He joins the adulterers and approves of the new union!!
Obviously Fallacious
Before we enter a study of the theory in consideration of the definitions and arguments to show he fallaciousness of the general concept, we call attention to two obvious contradictions to our Lord.
"When a marriage is thus dissolved, the innocent is no longer married to the guilty NOR is the guilty any longer married to the innocent. NO MARRIAGE EXISTS (Lloyd Moyer)
But Jesus denies this conclusion, for He says: "who-so marrieth her which is put away," (when the man puts away his wife and marries another without the cause of fornication), "doth commit adultery." Jesus says that both marriages are adulterous! (Matt. 19:9)
I.
According to the theory, when one has put away his wife and married another, he is no longer married, his former wife is no longer married and commits no adultery in contracting a new marriage.
According to brother Moyer's theory adultery is committed only the one time and that by the one marrying first! The theory contradicts Jesus and demonstrates that the premise is false.
II.
The theory contends that adultery can be committed only the one time in the described situation. However, Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication" — changes (1) civil sanction — "and shall marry another" — violating (1) the vow and (3) the physical relationship — "committeth adultery." (Matt. 19:9) The theory denies that adultery is committed beyond the first act in consummation of the marriage. But Jesus says that the man in this marriage "commits adultery." The tense here is present, indicative mood, denoting "'linear' action in present time." (Idiom-Book of N. T. Greek, C.F.D. Moule) "It signifies action in progress, or state in persistence, and may be represented by the graph (_____________)." (A Manual Grammar of the Greek N. T., Dana and Mantey) In other words, he "lives in adultery." (See Col. 3:5-8, Rom. 7:1-3) The tense is so recognized by those commenting on the verse:
"Whosoever, then, is married contrary to God's word, that is, in the forbidden degrees, or has put away one wife, not an adulteress, and married another, or vice versa; or whosoever has married the woman proved to have been adulterous, such an one is under the curse of God and is in sin so long as he or she remains in this connection. (1 Cor. 5:5)" — H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Matthew.
"She is in adultery all the time." — David Lipscomb, Questions Answered.
The theory advanced by brother Moyer assumes that the adultery is a single act. If it be argued as some do that this context is an exception and "committeth adultery" is actually an aortic use of the present tense, then proof from the context must be forthcoming. Of course, this is not so as a study of the Greek tenses will bear out.
If, as the theory affirms, the act of adultery dissolves the former marriage and establishes the second, then we note again that in the case of the man in Matt. 19:9 it is adultery that makes an unlawful relationship lawful. Who would have ever thought that any gospel preacher would ever affirm that a sinful act makes an unlawful thing lawful!!
To be continued next week)
— 1900 Jenny Lind Avenue, Fort Smith, Ark.