Darrell writes: "Al, it's not a problem to disagree with me. The problem is your rejection of Jesus' doctrine." He then quotes a couple of passages from the writings of the apostle John. "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day" (John 12:48). I have no argument with what Jesus says here. Nor do I have any argument with the teaching which is delivered to us by Jesus Christ via the inspired writings themselves. What I do have a problem with are some of the interpretations of mere men with respect to our Lord's teaching. Darrell suggests that I have rejected the doctrine of Jesus. On the contrary. I reject the deductions of Darrell with regard to the doctrine of Jesus. There is a big difference!!

My critic also alludes to II John 9: "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." I'm convinced this is one of the most abused passages in the Bible. It has been wrested by virtually every feuding factionist in the church, and is wrongfully applied to condemn everything from multiple cups in the communion tray, eating in the church building, song books & pitch pipes, located preachers, drinking fountains, children's worship, and a zillion and one other "departures from the doctrine of Christ." A careful reading of the context, however, clearly declares (as biblical scholars will overwhelming attest) that the "teaching of/about Christ" from which one must not depart is that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (vs. 7), something which was being denied by many at the time of the writing of this brief epistle.

I continue to contend that I am in no way teaching anything contrary to the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, I do indeed present truths in conflict with the doctrine of Darrell. Since it is the words of my Lord which will judge me one day, however, I choose to remain faithful to them rather than to the assumptions and deductions of a mere fallible disciple. Because I do not agree with his own personal perceptions, Darrell assumes that I am therefore in disagreement with the LORD. No, Darrell, I'm just in disagreement with YOU. Differing with you and differing with the Lord are not one and the same, although you apparently perceive them to be!!

Later in the post Darrell comments: "I wonder why you do not teach that when a person breaks God's law he receives a total release from God's law?" He then points to Matthew 5:19 in which the term luo is used ("Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" -- NASB). He then declares: "If what you argue about divorce were true, then when one shall violate God's law, he shall be totally free from God's law."

I'm sorry, Darrell, but your "logic" here totally escapes me, as I tried to point out in our recent question and answer exchange. The passage you mention has absolutely nothing to do with a person no longer being subject to God's law. It talks about one who willfully chooses to sever himself from obedience to God's law, but that certainly does not mean that person is now free from God's law in the ultimate sense. God's law applies to that person whether he chooses to obey it or not. If I go 80 mph in a school zone, that does not thereby forever free me from the law which states I must go only 15 mph in a school zone. A violation of law on my part does not void the law itself. I may willfully choose to violate this law for the rest of my life; just completely ignore it. I may willfully refuse to EVER obey the law of 15 mph in a school zone. I do indeed have that option (if I choose to be stubborn and self-willed, and don't care about the consequences), but that does not mean I am suddenly no longer amenable to that law, or the consequences of it, nor does it mean the law itself is somehow made void by my willful severing of myself from any compliance to it. On the contrary. My lawless behavior serves to validate the just nature of that law, even though I may have willfully severed myself from obedience to it.

With regard to marriage and divorce, and God's IDEAL, and the use of the concept of luo in that regard, just because one's covenant of marriage has come to an end, and is fully & finally terminated, does not mean that such a person is now free to live a life of unrestrained wantonness for the remainder of his/her days. God's IDEAL is still very much in place, and that man or woman is still amenable to it in future relationships (although, like any law, they can choose to disobey it, thus cutting themselves off from it). Should they seek a further union at some point in the future they are just as obligated to seek to achieve God's IDEAL as they were the first time. God still desires covenants of marriage to last, and that desire does not change just because one has experienced (either willfully or innocently) a prior failure in this area of life.

We all fail in various areas of our life, areas in which God has called us to succeed and not fail. However, our failures do not thereby void the force of His law in our lives. We don't whittle away His actual law with each successive sin, rather our failings just serve to spotlight the just nature of His law, and the need for it. Yes, Darrell, some do indeed "loose, unbind, break, nullify, sever" (luo) the force of law in their own lives, and indeed teach others to do so. Are these people thereby no longer subject to God's law, simply because they have chosen to sever themselves from it? Of course not. The law stands; it is not one bit diminished by our willful dismissal of it and disobedience to it. But, Darrell, the force of luo is also very evident here, and I think you need to acknowledge this reality. From a practical, personal obedience point of view, continual, willful transgressors have indeed completely severed (luo) themselves from law (in the practical sense that they have chosen no longer to obey it). This is the significance, by the way, of the term "lawless" -- "without law, or apart from law."

Do you see the distinction, Darrell? The word luo does indeed denote a complete severing. The severing is NOT of the universal force of God's law over mankind; only God can sever that, and I doubt that He intends to do so. The law stands, whether men heed it or not. Violating law doesn't void law. But for the lawbreaker, who has made the willful determination to personally sever himself from obedience to law, a genuine break or severing has been made (in the practical sense of obedience). A pathological liar, for example, has severed himself from the law forbidding lying; indeed, he's severed himself from truth! That law still stands, and it is still in force over mankind, but in a practical sense it is "loosed, severed" (luo) with regard to THIS man because he has willfully chosen to cut himself off from it.

I am merely trying to point out the force of the word luo here, Darrell. The word does indeed denote a complete severing, loosing, unbinding, setting free. That is the force of meaning of this word. In the above illustrations it applies to one who has chosen to set aside and separate himself from obedience to God's law in his own life, and it also applies to one who has chosen to set aside or sever a covenant with a spouse. A complete severing and disuniting has occurred. Both the law and the IDEAL are still very much in place, of course, and a violation of either is still a sin.

People CAN, however, later repent, and people CAN once again seek to embrace the law of God in their lives, or His IDEAL for marital covenants. A liar who repents is not forever forbidden from telling the truth in the future, is he? Indeed, we would agree he is still obligated to do so (even though he may have personally chosen to cut himself off from that obligation for a time), and one who has forsaken worship is not forever forbidden from seeking out worshipful expression in the future, is he? Indeed, he would be well advised to do so. And one who has failed in a covenant of marriage is not forever forbidden from seeking to embrace the IDEAL in whatever future relationships or unions which may come his/her way, is he/she? Indeed, they may well be more likely (due to their previous failure) to do so in light of their heightened appreciation for God's IDEAL with regard to the covenant of marriage.

Your argument with regard to luo, Darrell, is illogical, and it has no validity in the area of MDR. Just because a marriage covenant has completely ended, does not mean the sinful parties involved are forever freed from the force of God's IDEAL, or of His law. You pick yourself up and you get back in the race, and you learn and grow from your mistakes. And the grace of God is there to aid you. If anything, those who fail (and who learn thereby) know even more fully the value of God's law and IDEAL with respect to the covenant of marriage. And, hopefully, they will be all the more devoted to that law and IDEAL in the future.

With regard to the statement of Jesus concerning eunuchs (Matthew 19:12), Darrell continues to promote a form of religious self-abuse and mutilation in promotion of his false theory. It brings to mind what Paul had to say in Col. 2:23 --- "These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." Since Darrell regards remarriage for most divorced persons as a "continuation in adultery" or a "living in sin" (a false view I have already exposed in this discussion), he therefore writes, "this is why some who have divorced for reasons other than fornication 'have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.' This is Bible, not a man's mere opinion!"

On the contrary, Darrell. It is your interpretation of a passage, and nothing more. We have discussed this in some depth in this exchange already, and I refer the readers to those posts. I think you will discover, Darrell, that almost NO reputable biblical scholars embrace your view on this. It is an extreme, and in my view completely indefensible, and frankly ludicrous, theory which would lead people to actually mutilate themselves in order to appease a handful of rigid religionists. Such is unconscionable!!

With regard to the so-called "exception clause," Darrell states: "The fact that the clause only appears in Matthew makes absolutely no difference to its validity." I agree with you here, brother. All the Lord has to do is say something ONCE for it to be in full force over our lives!! You will get no argument from me on that. Our Lord's statement, as recorded by Matthew, "except for fornication," obviously has some valid meaning for His disciples then and now (and indeed for all men). The challenge, of course, is to determine that meaning. The fact that the other gospel writers omit this phrase when quoting our Lord's statement on MDR must be factored in when formulating an interpretation. This is, as you would undoubtedly agree, in keeping with the principles of sound hermeneutics. I do not discount the validity of this particular phrase, Darrell, I merely discount the validity of your interpretation of this phrase. The clause itself, obviously, has tremendous validity, as I point out in my book. Again, I believe we have both stated our positions on the meaning of this phrase, and we differ in our interpretations. I suppose we are going to have to leave it at that and allow the reader to decide between our views.

Darrell wrote: "If there is no exception to Jesus' law on divorce and remarriage, then whosoever divorces and remarries commits adultery." He goes on: "As I point out above, if your position on the exceptive clause were true, then your doctrine makes all divorced and remarried persons adulterers. I know, as well as the readership of this discussion, that you don't believe this conclusion. But consistency with the Bible demands it."

In order to clarify what Darrell paints as a picture of utter confusion and inconsistency in my theology, I need to refer the readers to the meaning of the term moicheia (which we typically translate as "adultery"). I have presented an extensive study of this word in my book (Chapter Six), but will only quote the following from the end of that word study:

• It should be rather obvious, therefore, from this admittedly brief and incomplete overview, that adultery, as understood within the pages of the Scriptures, simply cannot be limited exclusively to the narrow definition of "an illicit sexual act between a married person and one other than their spouse."

• As one carefully examines all the many facets of the biblical concept of adultery, one soon begins to realize that the concept itself has a greater focus and broader scope than any specific part of the whole. In other words, the concept of adultery, as presented in the pages of Scripture, appears to be more the resultant breakdown or breach of a covenant, than any specific act itself, of which there are many, which may have generated that effect. By limiting the meaning of moicheia to only one of its many biblical usages, and then maintaining that this alone is adultery, one will have great difficulty understanding the teaching of Jesus with respect to divorce and remarriage. However, if one regards moicheia as a resultant breakdown of a covenant relationship, for which there are numerous possible causes, one will appreciate far more the significance of the Lord's teaching, and one's practical theology will be more in tune with the will of God.

• When Jesus declares that adultery has been committed, He is stating far more than the fact of two people engaging in a physical sex act, although adultery on occasion may involve this. He is declaring the fact of a broken covenant between a husband and wife. Although sexual infidelity may well have ultimately been the cause of some of those disunions, there is little doubt that in some of the Lord's statements about divorce and remarriage sexual infidelity is not even remotely being alluded to when He utilizes the word adultery, as will soon be demonstrated.

• It is divorce itself that Jesus focuses upon and condemns, far more so than any particular cause that may have generated that dissolution of marriage. There are countless causes for the failure of marriages, but it is the failure itself that Jesus says is unacceptable before God. Moicheia, therefore, refers to the actual breach of the covenant, the breakdown of the marriage relationship, for which there may be a host of causes.

• The spouse who is guilty of "committing adultery," then, is the spouse responsible for violating his or her covenant of marriage and bringing about the destruction of this sacred relationship. The cause may well have been sexual misconduct; it may well have been something else entirely. The adultery of which Jesus speaks is unfaithfulness to the covenant itself, and to the other party to that covenant, not a solitary, singular act which might have contributed to that breach. Moicheia is simply not as limited in scope as many interpreters seek to make it.

• To truly understand the teaching of Jesus, it is critical that one shift his focus from cause to effect. "The point of the utterances of Jesus is His condemnation of the disruption, no matter what the cause may have been. The point should not be shifted to the cause of the disruption, whether this be grave or light. Whatever the cause, a disrupted marriage is a disrupted marriage" (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel, p. 735).

Home Index