A Review Of "Marriage, Divorce, And Remarriage" - (No. 2)
The marriage theory as set forth by brother Lloyd Moyer in his tract, "Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage," is built upon a fallacious concept of marriage, divorce and adultery. Most anything can be proved if a person is allowed to arbitrarily define Bible terms and assume the premise of his argument. This we believe brother Moyer is guilty of doing, and becomes apparent as we examine what he purports to be his "proposition defined" and "some definitions."
Instead of defining a proposition, he simply asks a series of questions — eleven by count — as things to be determined. Following this he states what to him constitutes "marriage." We note that it is carnal throughout, that is, divine sanction is omitted. Marriage, according to the theory, is nothing more than (1) a mutual agreement which is of validity only as the parties desire to honor it, and which may be violated at will by either; (2) civil authority approving, involving regulations established by men permitting divorce for most any cause; and (3) the persons joined in cohabitation. "Where these elements exist, God recognizes a Marriage," we are told. God's only role in this concept is simply to recognize the status quo. His only remonstrating expression is to impute to those who freely violate the three elements one sin of adultery. And so it is that divorce and remarriage without Scriptural cause, where a family relationship is destroyed, is LESS SINFUL than a mistake involving two acts of adultery but where the family relationship is preserved through repentance of the guilty and forgiveness by the innocent! The former has only one sin to be forgiven by God and the latter two — the sin being identical in both cases!
Marriage Defined
The theory concept of "marriage" is fallacious because it omits (4) divine sanction: "What therefore God bath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt. 19:6) The "joining together" is by God and not by man so that God only can dissever lt. "Joined together" is translated from suzugnuo and is defined as "to yoke together," "to fasten to one yoke," from sun, with, and zugos, a yoke, and means "to join together, unite," "pair." (Greek Lexicon by Arndt and Gringrich, page 783; by Thayer, page 594, and W. E. Vines, page 276, Vol. 2.) This word is used only in Matt. 19:6 and Mark 10:9. A person is released from this yoke only upon the condition set forth by God Himself.
When God joins together husband and wife, they are bound for life. To this end they vowed. So then "the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth" and likewise the husband to the wife. (1 Cor. 7:27, 39) Death alone releases one from this union so that he or she is loosed and may marry again, the one exception to this being fornication whereby the innocent party may be loosed.
Marriage as recognized by man is not always so recognized by God, even when the three elements of this new marriage theory have been "destroyed" and "exist" in a new relationship. "Know ye not brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." (Rom. 7:1-3) Notice that:
1. The woman is bound for life;
2. Though married to another, the man to whom bound is her "husband" still;
3. Adultery, where she is guilty, does not free her.
According to the Moyer theory, when the woman "married" another man (destroyed (1) the vow, (2) the civil contract, and (3) the physical relation) she became free from the first man by the one act of adultery and is joined to the second, God so "recognizing." But not so! Though "married" to the second man, Paul states that the first is her "husband," she is still "bound," and she is not "free." She is not released by God from the (4) divine sanction. Therefore, she is an adulteress. She thereby takes to herself the name of her business — she acts the adulteress and so she is. (See Thayer, p. 671, chrematizo.)
"Here the business it is employed about is the unlawful intercourse of a wife, whose husband is still living, with another man. It therefore signifies acting the adulteress. This is the exact meaning. To render it, as the E. V., 'she shall be called an adulteress' is without warrant. The Apostle does not mean to tell what the woman shall be called, but what business she will be engaged in. She will act the adulteress." — Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Romans, page 222.
Since a husband or wife is bound until death, when there is a separation, the parties must remain unmarried. "Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." (1 Cor. 7:11) Putting asunder (the word "depart" here is the same as "put asunder" in Matt. 19:6 referring to divorce) does not free either party: they must remain single, unless the innocent is loosed by reason of the unfaithfulness of the other. Paul's instruction here is imperative. Brother Moyer asks, "Where is the passage or passages which teach that the guilty person whose marriage has been destroyed cannot be married again?" Here it is: 1 Cor. 7:11 and Rom. 7:1-3. Now we ask brother Moyer for the passage that says one may divorce and remarry in violation of the one cause stated by our Lord (for a reason other than fornication) with God's approval. Where is it?
In this same connection, notice that brother Moyer says, "Sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are married to each other is 'free from contamination'." But not so where divorce for unscriptural cause is involved, according to an inspired writer. Paul says that the woman is married in Rom. 7:1-3, but she still commits adultery with him. Why? Because she is still bound to her husband; God has not and does not loose the guilty party! And as long as they live together she acts the adulteress! When married, brother Moyer says, "subsequent sexual intercourse between them is not adultery," but Paul says that it is. Choose whom you will believe.
Adultery
Brother Moyer defines adultery as "the act of 'adulterating' something, or 'defiling or making unclean'." He then juggles the word and his definition to conclude that "adultery simply adulterates the marriage" but not the "act of 'sexual intercourse'." Yet the definition for which he quotes a source says that to commit adultery is "to defile a married woman," "to have unlawful intercourse with anther's wife." (Harper, page 272; Thayer, page 417) In defiance of his own quoted references, brother Moyer reasons that "sexual intercourse" is not defiled "because that was ordained by our Creator" and so it must be marriage that is defiled. But was not marriage also "ordained by our Creator"? If this reason excuses one, would it not excuse the other?
The reason that brother Moyer tries to define adultery as defiling marriage but not the intercourse is so that he may find a reason for "dissolving" the marriage (sanctioned of God) and to justify the sexual intercourse of those living together who have a living wife or husband from whom they have not been "loosed" by God.
Adultery is "unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another" (page 33, Vol. 1, Expository Dictionary of N. T. Words, W. E. Vine); "to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife" (page 417, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon). And even when this unlawful intercourse takes place in "marriage," It is still adultery. Adultery does not "dissolve" the marriage sanctioned of God and make all but the first act "lawful intercourse." The woman in such "marriage" acts the adulteress and so the man the adulterer. (Rom. 7:1-3) As Jesus said, they commit adultery, i.e., they live in adultery! (Matt. 19:9; Col. 3:7; 1 Cor. 6:9-11)
God's Law
As we have before pointed out, when a man and woman marry according to God's law, they are joined together or yoked by God. This yoking involves divine law, which no human law or human manipulation can dissolve or set aside. A wife, for example, is bound by this law until death. (Rom. 7:2) The one exception by which one may be loosed is when fornication is present. But adultery per se does not loose the parties nor waive the law. It only gives the innocent party the right to be loosed. The Lord makes no provision for the guilty. He remains bound to his marriage vow to forsake all others to keep himself only to this one until death. If he puts away or departs from his mate without this cause, he is to remain unmarried. (1 Cor. 7:11) If without this cause, a person enters another "marriage" he acts the adulterer or adulteress. (Rom. 7:1-3)
The Moyer theory assumes that God's law of yoking may be set aside for a reason other than the one Christ allows. Jesus allowed divorcement by the party wronged. Brother Moyer says that the guilty party may divorce before the guilt and then by the guilt dissolve the union. And so the guilty may loose himself from the law and thereby profit by his own sins, the sin of divorcement without cause and the sin of adultery! This is antinomianism.
By correspondence I before levied this charge, and the only attempt made to answer it was to suggest that if a man "killed his wife" he could "repent and be free to marry." I question: does God allow a man to commit any sin in order to profit by it? Can a violation of God's law ever be committed to invoke God's law in any instance which without the deliberate transgression would involve an act of sin? Can man use sin in one instance to discredit or to circumvent God's law in another? Can man mock God thus? I deny it! If a man "killed his wife" in order to fulfill his adulterous lusts, could he repent without denying the lust?
A Premium on Sin. If God's divine sanction could be set aside in a way other than the one way God's law recognizes (and we have before proved that it cannot be), it would follow that a man could profit by his sin. For example, he could put away his wife "for any cause," as the Jews questioned Jesus in Matt. 19, and marry again. In so doing we are told that he commits one act of adultery, but notice — he could thereby put her away! There is no law to prevent divorcing! Everything is all right when he "decides that he will not commit those sins again" and is baptized as an alien or prays as a Christian — it works for both.
Man may not profit by his own guilt. The maxim, "Let us do evil, that good may come," is refuted by Paul in Rom. 3:8. Yet this new theory credits it. When a man divorces his wife without Scriptural cause and marries another according to civil law (before intercourse), he is in a sinful relationship. Yet when he commits adultery in this relationship, it ceases to be evil and becomes good. Evil is committed in order to bring about good. Forbid!
The devil tempted Jesus and even enlisted Scripture to accomplish his end. (Matt. 4:1-11) But Jesus pointed out that to act with ulterior motive, though in agreement with the letter of the law, is yet to sin. Yet the new theory supposes that a man by committing adultery can circumvent one law so as to qualify for another. With adulterous lust a man may divorce in violation of law (Matt. 19) and can marry the woman for whom he lusts and then by committing adultery with her "dissolve" his marriage before and take the new wife for his own to satisfy his lust.... purposely violate the "three elements" and have what would be unlawful if he had not circumvented God's law by sinning! Who can believe it?
"Every effort should be exerted to combat this flaunting of God's law." And a juggling of God's word can never justify one in an evil undertaking. God will not be mocked! (Gal. 6:7)
— 1900 Jenny Lind Avenue, Fort Smith, Arkansas