Background
On June 26, 2005, brother Bobby Holmes taught a lesson entitled Marriage,
Divorce, and Remarriage at the Northside church of Christ in Mansfield, TX, which
teaching I witnessed. Brother Holmes wanted to ensure that all were aware of the
doctrine that he was teaching:
"...I have two reasons or purposes in presenting this lesson.
Number one and foremost is to present to you what the word of God says and to make
it clear to you so that we can all understand exactly what God says on the subject
of marriage, divorce, and remarriage...The second reason is that I might go on record
and I want it on record I want it on tape what I believe the scriptures teach on
the subject that has been announced. I don't want anyone doubting what I believe
about these things, not that what I believe is going to determine what is truth
or error, but I want people to understand and I want it recorded as to what Bobby
Holmes believes the scriptures teach..." 1
The lesson was the culmination of a slow, inexorable change in the
doctrine that brother Holmes used to teach. I met with brother Holmes for 3 weeks,
prior to his lesson on June 26, in an effort to reason with him concerning the doctrine
he was ascribing to, but to no avail.
On Wednesday June 29, 2005, I sent brother Holmes an email voicing
my objection to the doctrine that he had taught and my desire, since a private study
had yielded no fruit, to have an open, public discourse with him on this subject
in a format of his choosing; he refused. That same evening, in an impromptu business
meeting with the men of the congregation, I offered to have a public discourse with
brother Holmes again, but again he refused.
Efforts by several faithful brethren, including gospel preachers
and elders, have not deterred brother Holmes in his determination to press his doctrine.
This article will be one of two articles examining the doctrine that brother Holmes
has adopted relating to the bible teaching on marriage and divorce.
This article will examine brother Holmes contentions concerning when
a divorce occurs.
1"Transcript of Bobby Holmes lesson Marriage,
Divorce, and Remarriage." Pillar of Truth Magazine.
2 December 2006. <http:pillaroftruthmagazine.org.> p.1
The Arguments
Brother Holmes argues in his lesson that the divorce consists only
of one sending their mate out of the house; the documentation of the divorce being irrelevant. He bases his conclusion
on two points:
-
The decree and sending out of the house are mentioned separately in Matthew 19.
For instance, he argued,
"...But, I want you to take notice that the certificate
was separate from the divorce. The certificate had to do with the court or the civil
matter while the divorce itself had to do with the sending away..." 1
In other words, he attempts to eliminate any connection in the Law of Moses between
the civil procedure to obtain a divorce and the actual divorce by arguing that the
sending away and the certificate of divorce are mentioned separately.
-
After reasoning that the divorce had nothing to do with the documentation under
the Mosaic Law, he then argues that a present-day divorce is accomplished when the
sending away is completed:
"...When one mate leaves or sends their mate out of the
house a divorce has taken place..." 2
Ironically, he then argues later in the lesson, in attempting to justify divorces
for causes other than fornication, that the divorce is the decree, or piece of paper:
"...if then the marriage relationship will not allow one
to serve the Lord, that person may need to seek a divorce,
only a piece of paper , in order to serve God..."
[my emphasis] 3
He further contradicts himself by saying that one must obtain the divorce documentation
to remarry:
"...If she sends him away for fornication then the bond
is broken, if she is going to file for divorce
. Now look with me, can the innocent one remarry without
going through the civil divorce? Absolutely not! Why? Because the law of the land
in this must be followed or else she becomes a bigamist and she breaks the law of
God..." [my emphasis] 4
Although the contradictory definitions illustrated in these quotes are obviously
problematic, his position can be summarized as follows:
- The certificate of divorce and the
sending away of the wife are mentioned separately in Matt. 19:9 and thus, have no
connection to each other. When one sends their mate
"...out of the house..." a divorce has taken place.
- While he argues that one divorces
their mate when they send them out of the house, he then argues that if one is going
to remarry, then they must obtain
another divorce, a civil divorce , before they
can remarry. Thus, he argues that when someone sends their mate out of the house
(as he reasons, divorces
their mate) they are not free to marry again at that point.
What does God say about these conclusions?
1"Transcript of Bobby Holmes lesson Marriage,
Divorce, and Remarriage." Pillar of Truth Magazine.
2 December 2006. <http:pillaroftruthmagazine.org.> p.3
2"Transcript of Bobby Holmes lesson Marriage,
Divorce, and Remarriage." Pillar of Truth Magazine.
2 December 2006. <http:pillaroftruthmagazine.org.> p.9
3"Transcript of Bobby Holmes lesson Marriage,
Divorce, and Remarriage." Pillar of Truth Magazine.
2 December 2006. <http:pillaroftruthmagazine.org.> p.13
4"Transcript of Bobby Holmes lesson Marriage,
Divorce, and Remarriage." Pillar of Truth Magazine.
2 December 2006. <http:pillaroftruthmagazine.org.> p.9
Does God teach a "sending-away" only divorce?
Brother Holmes argued that the
"...sending away..." constituted the divorce in Matt. 19:3-9.
"...But, I want you to take notice that the certificate
was separate from the divorce. The certificate had to do with the court or the civil
matter while the divorce itself had to do with the sending away..." 1
Before we examine whether the scriptures teach this, let us consider some facts
that God's Word teaches about exegesis and defining words from the scriptures.
The scriptures teach that we must define a word within its context.
For instance, the word adultery
, in most scriptural contexts, references illicit sexual intercourse
with someone other than their lawful mate. However, in some contexts, God defines
adultery as spiritual unfaithfulness:
"...For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their
hands. With their idols they have committed adultery, and they have even offered
up to them for food the children whom they had borne to me..."
Ezekiel 23:37 (ESV)
In the above passage, God says that the children of Israel had committed
adultery "...with their idols..."
Does this mean that they were having sexual intercourse with the carved images?
The context clearly shows that God is referring to Israel's spiritual unfaithfulness
to the Lord. Obviously, if we define the word
adultery in this passage out of context, we are going to present
an absurdity.
Another example of a contextual definition is the following passage from John:
"...Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, saying, 'Rabbi,
eat.' [32] But he said to them, 'I have food
to eat that you do not know about.' [33] So the disciples said
to one another, 'Has anyone brought him something to eat?' [34] Jesus said to them,
'My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work...'"
John 4:31-34 (ESV) [my emphasis]
We understand that the word
food would ordinarily mean that which we would consume for
nourishment. However, if we try to define the word
food in the above passage using that definition, we are going
to have an absurdity. Jesus clearly designates that the word
food in the
above passage refers to the work
that God gave Him to do, not consumed nourishment.
Thus, the scriptures dictate that a passage's context must dictate
a word's definition, not the other way around. Many are violating this bible principle
in regards to the definition of divorce in Matt. 19 and the use of the Greek word
apaluo.
Many are asserting that the word
apaluo (a generic term that can mean several things, depending
on the context), as used in Matt. 19:3-9, means "sending-away" only and has no reference
to a procedure under the Mosaic Law. Consider the following from Matthew 19:
- The Pharisees asked the Lord if it
was lawful for a man to divorce
(apaluo) their wives for just any cause (v.3)
- The Pharisees asked why Moses commanded
for them to give their wives a writing of divorce and send them away (apaluo; v.7)
- Jesus answers that Moses, because
of their hard hearts, allowed them to
divorce (apaluo) their wives (v.8)
The word apaluo
can have a generic meaning of sending-away; as it is used to define the phrase "...put
her away..." in v.7.
However, in v.3, the word
apaluo is used to define the word
divorce as the Pharisees' asked the question:
"...And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is
it lawful to divorce [apaluo]
one's wife for any cause..?'" Matthew 19:3 (ESV)
[my emphasis]
What does the text say constituted the divorce (Greek word
apaluo ) that the Pharisees
were referring to? We find the answer in v.7, in which the Pharisees state the procedure
allowed by the Mosaic Law:
"...They said to him, 'Why then did Moses
command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away
....?'" Matthew 19:7 (ESV)
[my emphasis]
The
command of Moses (and thus of God) if one was going to divorce
their wife was that both
components were necessary, the certificate of divorce and the sending-away.
1"Transcript of Bobby Holmes lesson Marriage,
Divorce, and Remarriage." Pillar of Truth Magazine.
2 December 2006. <http:pillaroftruthmagazine.org.> p.3
Furthermore, in Matt. 19:8 the Lord Jesus affirms the procedure articulated
by the Pharisees in v.7, and answers with
one word in v.8, <
apaluo , to refer to the entire process of divorce under the
Law of Moses:
"...He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your
hearts, permitted you to divorce
[referring to both parts of the process under the Law of Moses in
v.7] your wives, but from the beginning it was not so..."
Matt. 19:8 (NKJV) [my
emphasis]
If a sending-away
was all that a man was required to do under the Law of Moses,
then either the Lord Jesus made a gross misstatement, or he failed to correct the
Pharisees because both He and they understood the Law of Moses to teach that both
the putting away and
the writing of divorce to be necessary to complete the divorce, which,
according to brother Holmes, is incorrect: only the sending away constituted the
divorce. The context shows that the Lord Jesus recognized the entire process as
the divorce under the Old Testament. This misunderstanding occurs when we lift the
generic word apaluo
out of its context. It is also worthy to note that in Matt. 19:6
the Lord Jesus uses another word which obviously means divorce in this
context:
"...therefore what God has joined together, let not man
separate ..."
Matt. 19:6 (NKJV) [my emphasis]
When the Lord uses the word separate, is he just referring to someone
causing the lawfully married couple to not be together? In v.4-6, the Lord Jesus
is answering the question posed to Him by the Pharisees in v.3 about whether it
was lawful for a man to divorce
his wife for any cause. Thus, when the Lord commanded that
man is not to separate
what God joined together, the context demands that the word
separate mean
divorce in this passage even though we recognize that it could have other meanings
in other contexts.
Brother Holmes tried to establish that since the decree and the sending away were
mentioned separately in v.7 of Matthew 19, that one is not dependent upon the other.
However, note the following passages:
"...he who believes and
is baptized shall be saved..."
Mk. 16:16 (NKJV) [my emphasis]
"...Repent therefore and
be converted, that your sins may be blotted out..."
Acts 3:19 (NKJV) [my emphasis]
"...They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses command to give a
certificate of divorce and
to put her away...'" Matt. 19:7 (NKJV) [my emphasis]
We would recognize that salvation is contingent upon both belief and baptism. We
should also recognize that our sins being blotted out are contingent on both repentance
and being converted. We are going to have to realize that under the Law of Moses,
the divorce consisted of both the putting away and the writing of divorce. Brother
Holmes's definition of divorce is in conflict with revealed scripture and thus is
false.
Brother Holmes indicated that an individual who divorces their mate
( "...sends their mate out of the house..."
using his definition) for the cause of fornication was
not free to remarry yet. In other words, though this individual divorced
their mate, they were not free to remarry without the writing of divorce. He concludes
that there was a divorce and then a civil divorce.
"...If she sends him away for fornication then the bond
is broken, if she is going to file for divorce
. Now look with me, can the innocent one remarry without
going through the civil divorce? Absolutely not! Why? Because the law of the land
in this must be followed or else she becomes a bigamist and she breaks the law of
God..."1
However, Jesus indicates in Matthew 19:9, by forced conclusion, that once a man
divorced his wife, he was released from the marriage, whether the divorce was lawful
or not and the woman who was divorced by her husband was no longer married. God
would indeed condemn the unlawful divorce and subsequent adulterous remarriage,
if a remarriage followed an unlawful divorce, but once the divorce was completed,
it was completed. When (under the Mosaic Law) was a divorce completed? When a man
gave his wife a writing of divorce and sent her away (Matt. 19:7-8)!
"...And I say unto you, whoever divorces his wife, except for
sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her
who is divorced commits adultery..." Matthew 19:9
(KJV)
In other words, once you are divorced, the marriage is terminated,
period, and we will search this and every other text in vain to find another, civil
divorce after
the divorce, which brother Holmes has asserted that one must have before they can
remarry. Brother Holmes and the Lord Jesus do not agree. An action is not completed
until it is completed. One is not baptized until they are baptized. One is not saved
until they are saved. Similarly, one is not divorced until they are divorced. Again,
the context clearly indicates that the writing of divorce was just as much a part
of the process as the sending away.
Thus, both of brother Holmes' contentions are false:
- He asserted that the divorce consisted
of the sending-away
. The text of Matt. 19:3-9 (and ever other text on this subject)
affirm that a divorce under the Mosaic Law consisted both of a certificate
and
sending-away.
- He asserted that a second, post-sending-away
civil divorce is necessary for one to remarry. Jesus asserts that the one and only
divorce (defined as the certificate of divorce and sending-away
under the Law of Moses) terminates the marriage and in the case where one lawfully
divorces their mate for their mate's fornication, that one may lawfully marry another
after that
one divorce.
1"Transcript of Bobby Holmes lesson Marriage,
Divorce, and Remarriage." Pillar of Truth Magazine.
2 December 2006. <http:pillaroftruthmagazine.org.> p.9
We come to the final point about the definition of divorce. Is there
a divine protocol concerning divorce today? Under the Law of Moses, God's commandments
dealt not only with the spiritual elements, but also with civil law. For instance,
the Law dealt with such civil matters as what happened when a man's ox fell into
an uncovered pit (Ex. 21:33). As well, God delivered a civil procedure
concerning how a divorce was to take place (Deut. 24:1-4).
Brother Holmes contended that Jesus never dealt with the civil procedure
(or civil courts
, to use his words) in Mt. 19:
"...In Matthew 19 the Lord not one single time in justifying
a divorce is referring to the civil courts.The Lord never dealt with the civil court.
I say to you whoever puts away his wife, except for fornication and marries another
commits adultery. He is not talking about the civil courts. He is talking about
this right here. The sending out of the house, the divorce the putting away the
sundering of that marriage..." 1
This argument completely ignores and violates the context of the
passage. As the scriptures have already established, both the Pharisees and the
Lord Jesus acknowledged that God's civil procedure for obtaining a divorce consisted
of a writing
of divorce and sending the mate away . The fact that Jesus
is dealing primarily with unlawful divorce in this passage does not in any way diminish
the fact that Jesus acknowledges the procedure by which a divorce occurred.
Furthermore, the context shows that the Lord Jesus did not have to deal with the
procedure
which God had instituted for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4) because all under
the Mosaic Law, which included the Pharisees and the Lord Jesus, understood what
the procedure was. Thus, contrary to brother Holmes argument in footnote number
8 above, the Lord Jesus not only acknowledged God's civil procedure, but that procedure
was reiterated in the passage.
As Christians, we do not live directly under God's civil law as the
Mosaic Law has been eliminated (Col. 2:14), but consider what civil law God says
that we are
under:
"...Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.
For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed
by God..." Rom. 13:1-4 (NKJV)
"...Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for
the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14or to governors, as to those
who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those
who do good..." 1 Pet. 2:13-14 (NKJV)
Thus, the above passages clearly indicate that God has relegated
these civil matters to the earthly governments under the New Testament. Two civil
regulations that Christians are to submit to are how marriages are entered into
and how divorces are obtained. It is worthy to note that God's Word recognized the
marriage and divorce procedures of other governments, a prominent example being
the divorce (not mentioned, but understood in accordance with Roman law) of Herodias
from her husband Phillip and her subsequent remarriage to Herod (Mark 6:16-18).
While John the baptizer clearly told Herod by the Spirit that it was unlawful for
him to have (married) Herodias, the procedure by which she obtained the divorce
was valid and the subsequent ungodly marriage was, in fact, a marriage.
As a final note, some are arguing that when I or another individual
contend that we have to abide by the civil authorities determination of when a divorce
occurs that we are trying to "...subvert God's law
to man's law..." using such emotional appeals to
fairness such
as: "...It's not fair that the husband could so
easily divorce his wife..." or
"...surely God does not accept that farce of a divorce that the husband obtained
against his innocent wife..." This type of
fairness reasoning
is bereft of any scriptural support. Although Brother Holmes did not argue this
way in his lesson, this reasoning is gaining popularity among brethren. Consider
what the Lord Himself said about those misusing His divorce procedure under the
Mosaic Law:
"...And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar
of the Lord with tears, with weeping and crying; So He does not regard the offering
anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. 14Yet you say, 'For what
reason?' Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth,
with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife
by covenant. 15But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And
why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none
deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. 16'For the Lord God of Israel says
that He hates divorce, for it covers one's garment with violence,' Says the Lord
of hosts. 'Therefore take heed to your spirit that you do not deal treacherously...'"
Malachi 2:13-16 (NKJV)
God is clearly condemning the practice of the men dealing treacherously
and unfairly with their wives by divorcing them. Did God then reason due to this
unrighteousness, "... we need to
stop this unfair procedure of divorce! We need to make divorce simply sending one's
mate out of the house to give the woman the right to divorce also
..."? This scripture and others indicate the ungodliness being perpetrated
on the women of the children of Israel, but the procedure was still the same: the
man gave his wife a writing of divorce and sent her away. The issue was not the
procedure
for the divorce, but the hardness of the hearts that attempted to exploit the
procedure and
justify divorce for any cause. However, God clearly confirms that the procedure
was valid and that treacherous divorces were occurring due to hard hearts. Similarly,
when someone obtains a divorce using the procedures ordained by the government (which
God has ordained), with or without just cause, a divorce has occurred, and not before.
Consider 1 Cor. 7:10:
"...Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A
wife is not to depart from her husband. 11But even if she does depart let her remain
unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife..."
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (NKJV)
This passage indicates that the woman who violates the Lord's command
and was previously married is now unmarried, or
divorced . This Corinthian woman (or man) would have obtained
this divorce, although unlawful, by the ordinance of the civil government where
they lived, most likely the Roman government in this case. Thus, such appeals to
fairness
that attempt to circumvent the civil laws of the divorce procedure are wholly without scriptural
merit. When one obtains a divorce under the civil ordinances, whether that action
is lawful or not, that divorce is called a
divorce by God's word.
In summarizing Brother Holmes's definition of divorce:
- He failed to define the word
apaluo
in its context and thus concluded that the divorce only consisted of the sending
away. Jesus affirms that the entire procedure (the writing of the divorce and the
sending away) constituted a divorce under the Mosaic Law. Brother Holmes's definition
does not agree with scripture.
- He affirms that even when the divorce
has happened ( only
the sending away, according to the definition he used) for a
cause of fornication, then the innocent is not free to remarry yet, but they
must obtain another
,
civil divorce to free them to remarry. Jesus denies this
as the context shows that once a divorce is completed, it has severed the marriage;
no further action is necessary or even
possible . If the innocent divorced the guilty fornicator,
then that individual was free to remarry immediately; this innocent party, contrary
to brother Holmes argument, would
not have had to obtain another,
civil
divorce.
- He correctly concluded that the
governing authorities have jurisdiction in the matter of divorce, but he inexplicably
applied this only to the individual who wished to remarry. We do not live under
the direct civil law of God as the Israelites did, but rather under the civil governments
which He has ordained (Rom. 13:1-2). It is these civil governments that have jurisdiction
over when a divorce occurs, and the Christian is to submit himself to those ordinances
concerning divorce procedure or he will be guilty of resisting the ordinance of
God (Rom. 13:2).
1"Transcript of Bobby Holmes lesson Marriage,
Divorce, and Remarriage." Pillar of Truth Magazine.
2 December 2006. <http:pillaroftruthmagazine.org.> p.9
Conclusions
Brother Holmes has taught false doctrine and has affirmed his false teaching in
spite of efforts to turn him away from it. The one who brings false teaching is
guilty of causing divisions in the Lord's church:
"...I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause
divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught;
avoid them. [18] For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,
and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve..."
Romans 16:17-18 (ESV)
The scriptures instruct us that we are to speak the same thing and be perfectly
joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
"...Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions
among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the
same judgment..." 1 Corinthians 1:10 (NKJV)
May we heed the Lord's command, speak as the oracles of God and give Him the glory
(I. Pet. 4:11).
|