Fallacy #1: Adam’s Fall and the Subsequent Reality of Treacherous Spouses Do Not Effect the Permanence of Marriage
Jesus: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way” (Matthew 19:8). Here we see that our Lord understood the changes that took place after the Fall of Adam. With the phrase, “From the beginning” our Lord is making a reference to the institution of marriage prior to the Fall. With the phrase, “Your hardness of heart” Jesus is making a reference to “the wickedness of man was great on the earth” (Genesis 6:5), which of course was subsequent to the Fall. The “hardness of heart” does not refer to the Pharisees wanting divorce come hell or high water as most assume, but rather to the general unrepentant wickedness of mankind. Moses did not cave in to the sinful demands of men who sought divorces so that they could find more appealing wives—it was never the purpose of God’s law to make allowances for sin. The laws of divorce were given to protect innocent spouses from treacherous (covenant breaking), unrepentant spouses, and in the same action were intended to shame the treacherous spouses. Only the treacherous spouse was intended to feel shame. Nevertheless, post-fall wickedness in men and women necessitated divorce as a protection for the innocent. Jesus said that he has not come to bring peace but a sword that would divide the most intimate of even familial relationships, but from the beginning it has not been this way. As the reader can see, separation was not necessary in the garden of Eden either, but Adam and Eve were separated from God and from the garden once sin entered the human race. From the time of the fall God has demanded that his children be separate from the world not only in marriage, but certainly in marriage—be in the world but not of the world. “Do not be bound together with unbelievers.”
Fallacy #2: Marital Divorce Is a Sin
The scriptures do not contain a single statement calling marital divorce a sin. God’s law gave instructions on how to carry out divorce lawfully. God’s law licensed no sin whatsoever. If any passage of scripture called divorce a sin, then Paul would have certainly referred to that passage in 1 Corinthians 7, but instead he said, “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not leave her.” The key to this passage is the word “consents”; however, for our current purpose, it is clear that Paul had no scriptural warrant upon which to reference that would make it obvious to Christians that divorce was sinful and prohibited by God.
The bible also uses the word for ‘divorce’ in referring to God’s action against Israel. Logic 101: God cannot sin. God divorced Israel. Divorce cannot be a sin. Obviously getting a divorce in order to commit adultery appears to show that divorce can be a sin, but Jesus made it clear that usurping a lawful path to commit adultery is still adultery. Nowhere in Matthew 18 does Jesus call divorce a sin, but improperly using a divorce to commit adultery does not take away the sin of adultery. The sin of those Pharisees was adultery and that is precisely what Jesus called it.
Fallacy #3: God Hates Divorce (Malachi 2:16)
Truth: Man Hates Divorce
This is the single greatest platitude that is used to turn God’s people against God’s gracious provision of divorce. Christians generally believe that God hates divorce, and they do so because Malachi 2:16 says as much in many modern translations. Sam Powell, pastor of First Reformed Church in Yuba City, has done considerable work determining a much more accurate translation taking into account the grammar and pronunciation of the Hebrew words and, according to him, the verse should read as follows:
“Because he hates, send away,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and violence covers his garment.”
The pronouns “he” and “his” do not refer to God, but to the wicked priests to whom Malachi was referring. The idea in the context of this passage in Malachi is that the wicked priests actually hated their wives (not to mention they hated God as well), and they were treacherous to the very women whom they had joined themselves to in their youth. Addressing them corporately Malachi uses a singular example when he in essence says, because he hates his wife he is a treacherous spouse and he should, at the very least, give her a writ of divorce and let her go.
It is not God but mankind who hates divorce. And they do so not out of a strong sense of righteousness or loyalty, but rather because divorce brings the treachery they have committed against their spouse out of the dark and into the light for all to see: “…Men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil” (even out of context this verse is true here). Where divorce should shame the unrepentant and free the innocent (as was the case of God divorcing Israel) it is currently viewed to shame everyone involved, and this happens because men hate God’s gracious provision of divorce.
Fallacy #4: Jesus Reversed Moses’ Permit of Divorce
Moses’ rules on getting a divorce are part of God’s Law. Jesus acknowledged as much when he said, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives” (Matthew 19:8c). Jesus also said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stoke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished (Matthew 5:17, 18).” All of our Lord Jesus’ statements about divorce were regarding the common abuse of divorce being committed by the rich and powerful of that day; how they made use of divorce to commit adultery with young, often foreign (godless), women in order to hide the wickedness of their actions with the legal cloak of divorce. What they were doing was tantamount to committing first degree murder and then trying to cover it up by claiming self-defense. Jesus never bought it.
Fallacy #5: Marital Divorce Never Glorifies God
Ezra & Nehemiah were among the godliest of Old Testament saints and they made a covenant with God to have all the men who had married outside the faith divorce their unbelieving, idolatress wives (Ezra 10:3). “Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, ‘You have been unfaithful and have married foreign wives adding to the guilt of Israel. Now therefore, make confession to the Lord God of your fathers and do His will; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives’” (Ezra 10:10, 11). This single passage is clear on three points: Being unequally yoked is a sin (Paul carried it over for Christians in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1). Secondly, we should confess this sin to God. Finally, as is the case with all sin we must repent; specifically put away (divorce) our unequally yoked spouse. Ezra’s actions were designed to get back under the will of God so that they may once again glorify Him.
Fallacy #6: If Christians Obeyed God They Would Never Sue for Divorce
This fallacy comes from a misunderstanding of Paul’s instructions on divorce in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul says that if the unbelieving spouse consents to live with the believer, then the believer must not send them away. By no means is this the same as saying if the unbelieving spouse refuses to divorce, then neither can the believer. The word “consents” requires positive action on the part of the unbeliever. Webster’s definition of consent: archaic: to be in concord in opinion or sentiment. Concord is defined as a state of agreement or harmony. In the text of 1 Corinthians 7 itself Paul provides the ways in which this agreement is to take shape. First, for the unbeliever’s consent to be given they will be actively in the process of being sanctified through the believing spouse (Verse 14a+b). In other words, they will be living in harmony with the life of a believer (Much like Cornelius in The Acts of the Apostles prior to his own conversion). Secondly, the unbeliever must agree to bring the children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord (Verse 14c+d). In a divided home the children will be unclean, but with this consent the children will be holy. Third, peace—the absence of bickering and fighting—is an integral part of this consent (Verse 15). Finally, the unbelieving spouse must believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (Verse 16). They must believe that the only way to forgiveness and reconciliation with God is through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ our Lord. To believe anything else divides the household and the children will not be holy. Clearly the unbeliever would not themselves yet be saved, but they must give honest, intellectual ascent that Jesus is the only way of salvation. For centuries it has been obvious that if Paul’s conditional clause was met, then the believer must not divorce their unbelieving spouse, but it is equally true of a conditional clause that if the condition is not met, then the believing spouse should divorce the unbeliever. So why has this understanding been entirely absent? What people look for they usually find. Their presuppositions say that God hates divorce and Jesus calls it adultery, neither of which are correct, so then Paul’s text to the Corinthians must prohibit divorce as well.
Fallacy #7: Jesus’ Use of “Hardness of Heart” Refers to Man’s Insistence to Use Divorce to Commit Adultery
With the phrase, “Your hardness of heart” Jesus is making a reference to the sinfulness of man, which immediately followed the Fall: “the wickedness of man was great on the earth” (Genesis 6:5). The “hardness of heart” does not at all refer to the Pharisees wanting divorce come hell or high water as most assume. When God’s word speaks of the “hardness of men’s hearts” it is a direct reference to stubborn, stiff necked rebellion against God and His ways. Jesus is saying that Moses gave God’s provision of divorce to protect innocent marriage partners from treacherous unrepentant spouses engaging in unbelief, rebellion, pride and gross immorality. Moses was no wimp. He did not cave in to the sinful demands of godless men who sought divorces so that they could find more appealing wives—it was NEVER the purpose of God’s law to make allowances for sin. Many in the church take the position that Jesus is undoing Moses’ Laws on divorce and going back to what God originally intended in the Garden of Eden. If churchmen just thought about that position for one minute they would realize the many problems with it, but because it supports a very popular view they fail to give it due diligence.
Fallacy #8: 2 Corinthians 6:14f Does Not Apply To Marriage
Martyn Lloyd-Jones says that it applies to marriage and only to marriage, so he for one does not hold to this fallacy. This argument is ludicrous on the face of it. Who gets bound together more than husband and wife? In terms of human beings, who is yoked together more than husband and wife? Are married couples expected to have partnership? Fellowship? Harmony? Commonality? Agreement? Of course they are and therefore this text applies to marriage.
1 Corinthians 7 should be interpreted in the light of 2 Corinthians 6 for a long list of reasons but time only allows for two: First, Paul’s second letter to the very same group of churches should be expected to clarify any comments he made in the first and not the other way around. If God’s children would simply take God’s word at face value, then 2 Corinthians 6:14 brings great clarity to any confusion about Paul’s meaning in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.
Secondly, Paul is clearly repeating a universal, divine command in 2 Corinthians 6:14f whereas in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 he is giving his own apostolic advice as to how to proceed when only one of two married people is born-again. His insights are spot on as we would expect from the great apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. However Paul’s teaching here, properly interpreted, conforms the rest of scripture including all the separation texts and especially all the texts prohibiting being in unequally yoked marriages. Heretofore a proper interpretation has been lacking, and this passage has for ages been understood so that it contradicts 2 Corinthians 6:14f. In order to release the tectonic plate sized pressure of this contradiction theologians and elders have made the unbelievable blunder of claiming that 2 Corinthians 6:14 does not apply to married couples.
Fallacy #9: Divorce Is a Salvation Issue
The fallacy says that if a Christian sues for divorce, then they are showing themselves to not be saved in the first place, and if he remarries he is practicing sin and cannot be saved unless he repents of his new marriage. This is a most damnable heresy. Why? This superstitious belief is responsible for untold numbers of godless marriages being maintained for entire lifetimes when God would have desired so much more for His children. Psalm 16:3 says, “As for the saints who are in the earth, they are the majestic ones in whom is all my delight.” David delighted in the godly and so should every faithful saint—and especially so in our marriages. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” None will be able to boast about their salvation in heaven. Well let me tell you that a great deal of boasting takes place for those whose marriages have grown long in the tooth. There are vast numbers of church goers with little to no fruit to show for 50 years of being so-called Christians except for their celebration of 50 years of marriage to the same person. Of course without fruit those are not actually unequally yoked marriages because neither partner is actually saved, but a true believer should not remain long in a marriage to a child of Satan. And salvation is by faith in the Son of God. Salvation is not lost when an obedient saint divorces a treacherous spouse in order to flee being unequally yoked to an unbeliever. Remarriage to a fellow saint is most glorifying to God. Psalm 133:1 says, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
for brothers to dwell together in unity!”