Revisionism (by Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.)

The primary definition of “revisionism” in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is: “Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.”

Revisionism, as defined here, can have a wide range of applications in a variety of contexts. The term for a while was used within the Communist movement by conservatives to describe efforts made to reform the movement–so widely so that this usage found its way into many dictionaries as a second meaning. It is sometimes used of efforts to rewrite history so as to make it compatible with the “political correctiveness” of the present time. The term would fit about any effort to revise any long held position to make it harmonize with an updated version of the position. So, it can be applied to giving biblical words and passages a slanted or forced meaning or interpretation so as to make them harmonize with what is perceived to be a more enlightened view. This is the way we use it in this article.

Revisionism in any context is usually born of a desire to make the “square peg” of an original version fit into the “round hole” of a revised edition. In an effort to harmonize the latest popular viewpoint with long-standing positions, the revisionist usually questions whether the old “facts” that was the basis of the old position were “facts” at all–so he reshapes the old to fit the new.

I think I am seeing a disturbing amount of revisionism among my own brethren.

Days of Creation

The Bible says, “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.” (Exod. 31:17).

Most any ordinary reader would conclude that this is saying that God made heaven and earth in six regular twenty four hour days–especially since the six work days for Jews were six ordinary days (see v. 15). Then there is the language of the Genesis account of creation. With each day of creation, the account ends with “and the evening and the morning were the (first, second, etc) day” (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). Without help one would not get any idea other than that these days were ordinary twenty-four hour days.

Why would one feel the need to have them mean anything else? Would such an interpretation conflict with other plain passages on the subject of creation? No. But it does run head on with much of the scientific community’s theorizing about the origin of the universe, the earth, and life. Hence many Christians, not wanting to appear scientifically challenged, fall all over themselves trying to find a way to harmonize the creation story with the latest scientific theory of origins. Therefore, the six days of creation are revised to allow for enough time for the universe and man to have evolved into their present state by natural evolutionary processes. So, these days must have really been “ages.”

One needs to understand that scientific theories of the origin of the universe and life are just that–theories. Theories based on the interpretation of data gathered by the scientific community. That interpretation is often tainted by a bias toward naturalism. These theories are constantly being challenged, debated, and fine tuned within the scientific community itself. The problem is that theory is accepted and taught as fact within most of the academic community. Many academics try to make anyone who questions the validity of their scientific “facts” out to be some kind of backward ignoramus who still thinks the earth is flat. Some brethren just cannot live with that kind of stigma, so they are quite willing to accommodate the day-age theory–either by accepting it outright or by accepting it as a possibility. So, they are unwilling to challenge it when it is taught.

Do you ask, “What harm can the day-age theory do?” It undermines faith in the credibility of the Bible as a whole. If we cannot depend on the obvious meaning of the words describing the creation, then how can we accept anything else so plainly stated with any degree of certainty? If we cannot accept at face value and depend on the biblical account of the origin of man, how can we depend on the biblical statements about his destiny?

Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage

The Lord’s language on divorce and remarriage seems rather straightforward at first glance.

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (Matt. 5:32).

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery (Matt. 19:3-9).

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (Mark 10:11-12).

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery (Luke 16:18).

One would think that language so simple would not generate so much controversy. When I first began preaching (a little over 50 years ago) most brethren did not find it nearly as hard to understand what the terms used by the Lord meant–though the teaching was not always applied consistently. But, back then divorce was far more rare than it is now. It was almost unheard of among brothers and sisters in Christ, at least in the areas where I did my early preaching. You might find a case or two here and there, but it was a rare thing. Now, it is just as rare to find a congregation that does not have members who are divorced and remarried. As the cases have increased so have the ways to try to justify them. It has become increasingly hard for brethren to accept at face value the language and terms used by the Lord in his teaching on this subject. Applying the language as it is written often has unpleasant consequences for those we love dearly and for congregations who have to deal with it. So, we at times may allow our emotions and sentiments to rule and conclude that the language must not mean what it seems to say on the surface. So, we find ways to redefine the biblical words and concepts so as to make them more acceptable to the realities of modern society. Consequently, we are hearing more and more ingenious but dubious ways to redefine words and concepts affecting the nature of the institution of marriage.

Adultery Redefined

For years most of us have taught that “adultery” means to “have unlawful intercourse with another's wife,” as defined by both Joseph Thayer and W. E. Vine in their highly respected lexicons. Or as The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Languages puts it, “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse." So, it was generally understood that the reason one who divorced his spouse and married another committed adultery was because he was having sex with “a partner other than the lawful spouse.” So, as long as they were doing that, they were “living in adultery” and that repentance would not allow for their continuing in that relationship.

Some are now redefining “adultery” as “breaking the covenant.” Hence, the “adultery” in Jesus’ statements on divorce becomes just the act of covenant breaking and not unlawful sexual intercourse. So, to correct this sin, one who has divorced his/her spouse has to repent only of “covenant breaking” rather than of “living in adultery.” Given this new definition, brethren can justify one becoming a Christian (and congregations accepting him) and continuing to live in the second marriage because he only has to repent of having broken the covenant. He may have married and divorced several times before coming to the Lord. According to this revisionist definition, he would only need to repent of and cease breaking covenants–rather than ceasing to live with a wife who is not lawful for him to have (cf. Matt. 14:4).

If this new found definition works in one place, it should work in other places as well. The woman caught in “the very act” of adultery (John 8:4) would have been in the act of covenant breaking. One with “eyes full of adultery” (2 Pet. 2:14) or looking upon a woman to lust (Matt. 5:28) would only be contemplating covenant breaking (maybe even a mental divorce) in his heart. Who can believe it?

The Cause for Divorce

More and more I am hearing and reading from brethren that there can be several lawful reasons for divorcing a mate other than fornication. It is just that, if one marries again, the cause of divorce must have been fornication. Thus, one may divorce for multiple causes without sin–as long as he remains unmarried. I have seen different lists of scenarios from different people, where they think that divorce would be lawful–without sin until the person remarries. All of these lists have one thing in common, they present scenarios that pull at the heart strings. But we are still faced with question asked Jesus and his answer in Matthew 19:3-8.

Nowhere in the text is it indicated that divorce for other causes is OK as long as there is no remarriage–but rather the opposite is indicated. To the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Jesus answers “from the beginning it was not so” in spite of what Moses had allowed because of hardness of the heart. What was not so? That one should divorce his wife. What God joined together man is not to put asunder. What sin does one commit by divorcing his wife for “just any reason”? The sin of divorce, which God hates (Mal. 2:16). Moses permitted divorce but Jesus made it clear that from beginning it was not so. Nor is it so now. Note that it does not say that Moses permitted divorce and remarriage, but merely divorce and from the beginning it was not so. What was not so? For “you to divorce your wives”–period. Only in verse 9, do we learn that there is any exception to this as Jesus explains the additional consequences of remarrying after divorce. It is here that we are forced to conclude that there is one exception and only one exception to the no divorce rule. Hardship and abuse cases that might cause one to divorce another without fornication, though they may be heartbreaking, do not change what Jesus said about divorcing for “just any reason.”

Bypassing Civil Requirements

There was a time when we thought we knew a marriage or a divorce when we saw it. But increasingly, I am hearing from beloved brethren that, at least in some instances, the civil aspects of divorce means nothing to God and therefore are irrelevant to a “real” divorce as God sees it. I read at least one suggestion that the little piece of paper (divorce paper where one had been unjustly divorced) means nothing to God and that you may as well blow your nose on it and throw it into the toilet. If civil papers ending a marriage have no more value than that, then civil papers beginning a marriage should have about the same value. If not, why not? The idea seems to be that the civil requirements relative to marriage or divorce are no more than formalities to satisfy human law and have no bearing on the reality of marriage or divorce in God’s eyes. Before we start disposing of marriage licenses and/or divorce papers so freely, let’s back off a bit and take a deep breath and think about the consequences of bypassing civil and cultural requirements for marriage and divorce.

As a gospel preacher and former elder, I have many times had to wrestle with problems created by marriage and divorce. Therefore, I can understand the attractiveness of this position after trying to help couples sort out messes into which some find themselves. No one likes to tell an unjustly divorced person that he cannot have the joy of a new marriage. But because a view is attractive and seemingly solves some tricky situations does not mean that it is the truth.

I believe all sides of this issue agree that God does not sanction all civilly sanctioned marriages or divorces. And that civil sanction alone does not make either a marriage or a divorce acceptable to God. But, does that mean that civil requirements are irrelevant to marriage and divorce in God’s sight? Does it mean that civil matters are nothing more than formalities to satisfy human law? Hardly.

Three God-ordained Institutions

Through the years brethren have preached that there are three basic God-ordained institutions: The Home (or Marriage), the State, and the Church. I still believe that is good preaching. The first two are temporal given by God to facilitate an orderly and civilized society for all men as long as the earth stands. In other words, these two are God-ordained social institutions for the temporal welfare and happiness of mankind. Where there is a breakdown of either marriage or government, chaos and a lack of common civility results.

The third, the church, is spiritual and designed to minister to man’s spiritual needs and to prepare him to live with God in the world to come. The Bible is more specific and detailed about the religious activities of man and things pertaining to “the church.” God alone determines what we can offer in worship and service to him and has expressly authorized what is to be done. The form of government (local/congregational), worship, and work for the church are precisely laid out and they are the same world-wide (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17).

In ordaining “the powers that be” and making them his ministers for good (Rom. 13:1-4), God did not order a specific form of government for all places and times but left that for the various societies and cultures to work out. While I like the American model and believe that it is the best in the world, it is not the only form ordained of God. Yet, there are certain principles of righteousness to which God holds all nations and their governments accountable (Prov. 13:34; 16:12)–without being specific as to the forms of government for various nations of the world. Citizens are told to honor and submit to the “powers that be” in whatever the form adopted by their society. Since these civil powers are ordained of God, their laws must be obeyed as ordinances of God (Rom. 13:2)–except when it would cause one to disobey a higher law of God (Acts 5:28-29).

The home or marriage is the oldest of God’s social institutions. In the beginning God made man after his image, male and female, and gave them the responsibility of procreation (Gen. 1:27-28). They were given sexual desire to facilitate this mission. He gave the same responsibility and desire to the animal kingdom as described in the preceding verses–with a marked difference. Man was to fulfil his mission and satisfy his desire within the institution of marriage (Gen. 2:24). While those of the animal kingdom satisfy their desire to mate with multiple partners, man was made to live on a higher plane. God made him after his image with intelligence and the capacity of make moral judgments and gave him his word to guide him in those judgments. Man is to satisfy his desire to mate only within the confines of monogamous marriage (cf. Heb. 13:4)–anything else is fornication or adultery. The wisdom of all of this has been borne out through the ages as we have seen all the problems, heartaches and even disease that promiscuous life styles have caused and the harm that broken marriages have done to children.

While the Bible says much about “marrying and giving in marriage” (cf. Matt. 24:28), it says little about the specific procedures. It just states that they married. When one takes into account all the Bible says on the subject he should be able to see that procedures differed from place to place, nation to nation, and culture to culture over the years covered by biblical history. But, whatever the procedure, the time and the place, the inspired writers called it marrying.

Nowhere is it indicated that marriage was just a informal private agreement, but a “covenant” (cf. Mal. 2:14)–a formally ratified agreement. The word (berit) translated “covenant” means:

(1) covenant, alliance, pledge

(a) between men (1) a treaty, an alliance, a league (man to man), (2) a constitution, an ordinance (monarch to subjects), (3) an agreement, a pledge (man to man), (4) an alliance (used of friendship), (5) an alliance (used of marriage)

(b) between God and man, (1) an alliance (used of friendship), (2) a covenant (divine ordinance with signs or pledges)” (Brown -Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon); a “compact. . . confederacy, confederate, covenant, league” (Strong)–all of which require formal confirmation, ratification or solemnization (Gal. 3:15).

The word for “confirmed” in Galatians 3:15 is from “kuroo,” meaning “to make authoritative, i.e. ratify” (Stong); “(1) to make valid; (2) to confirm publicly or solemnly, to ratify” (Thayer, italics mine, eob); “to make valid, ratify, impart authority or influence” (Vine). The covenant to live together as husband and wife, like other covenants, was formally and publicly ratified (ratification is an essential element of a covenant) by whatever procedure dictated by that society–thus one can read of various ways a covenant was ratified in the Bible. Just as God has given certain commands and principles to regulate civil government but leaves it to each society to establish its form of government, so it is that after giving the basic nature of marriage (a man leaving his parents and joining himself to his wife and their becoming one flesh), it is apparent from reading of marriage in the Scriptures that God left it to each society, culture, or government to work out the specific procedures for entering and ratifying the marriage covenant.

Just as each society has laws and procedures for beginning a marriage and its ratification, then each society has laws and procedures for ending the marriage . We are obligated to obey the civil authority under which we live in marriage and divorce just as we are in all other matters. As previously noted, the civil laws are to be treated as ordinances of God (Rom. 13:2).

When Jesus taught on marriage and divorce, he did not preface it with an explanation of what constituted a marriage or a divorce. He did not have to. Those to whom he spoke knew when one had “married her” (Mark 6:17) and when one had become divorced (Matt. 5:31) in their society. Neither of these things was done in a closet. Both marriage and divorce were publicly recognized as such by the societies in which the people lived.

God does regulate and put limits on what can be done in marriage and divorce in whatever society one lives without binding a uniform procedure for all nations and societies. He limits marriage to a man and a woman. He also limits a couple to one marriage for as long as both lives (Rom. 7:1-4). If either dies, the other is free to marry another. Jesus allows only one exception to this limitation. One who has a spouse who commits fornication has the option of putting the fornicator away and entering into another marriage covenant without committing adultery (Matt. 19:9).

How does a couple go about marrying? Jesus did not say. The procedure is left to the society in which they live. In our society it is generally done by getting a licence and having the marriage solemnized by a civil or religious “official.” Until this is done, it is not a marriage. I heard of a Kentucky couple a few years ago who came down from the mountains into the county seat, purchased a license and headed for Cincinnati on their honeymoon. They were contacted and called back home to complete the marriage by having it solemnized by a judge. They may have been married in their minds, but not really until they met the civil requirements of the state in which they lived.

What procedure must one follow in “putting her away”? Again, Jesus did not say. Does that mean that each person is at liberty to divorce by any procedure he might choose? No. If marriage is a formally ratified covenant, thus a matter of public record, then it follows that divorce also would be a matter of public record. The manner of making it so is left to the society in which one lives and may differ from society to society. In Israel it was done by giving a bill of divorcement (Deut. 24:1; Mark 10:4). In our nation it is done by petitioning for divorce and having the divorce finalized by the divorce decree issued by a judge. Without this there is no divorce.

I have a hard time relegating the question of the role of civil powers in marriage and divorce to a peripheral issue of the overall marriage, divorce and remarriage controversy as some of my good friends are inclined to do. The civil and societal aspects of the covenant and its ratification are at the very core of what constitutes a marriage or a divorce. Marriage is more that just a private agreement between a couple to be married before God, it is a covenant–a formal agreement that requires formal or public ratification.

While all “marriages” and “divorces” are recognized as such by God, not all are approved by him. The sacred text says that Herod had married his brother Philip’s wife–not that he lived with her, or that he had apparently married her, but he had married her (Mark 6:17). It was a marriage and it was real. However, it was not lawful or in keeping with God’s law. Even such unlawful marriages are still called marriages by divine revelation.

One can dissolve his marriage by divorce, but he cannot dissolve the bond by which the law of God binds him to his first wife even though they may no longer be married–hence God charges him with adultery when he marries another (Rom. 7:1-4). Is it possible to be bound and unmarried at the same time? Yes. Notice 1 Corinthians 7:10‑11, “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart (divorce or become unmarried, eob) 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.” She has but two options, “remain unmarried” or be reconciled to her husband. Why? Because, though she is “unmarried,” she is still “bound by the law” to her husband (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39). Because of this she is not at liberty to marry another without sinning against God.

Neither marriage nor divorce is a private arrangement or mental act. If this revised version of marriage and divorce becomes widely practiced it will throw society into chaos. A couple out on Saturday night allows their passion to get out of control–but believing sex is for marriage–could agree under the stars and “before God” to be married in the back seat of a car and they would be married “in the eyes of God” even if not in the eyes of civil law. If civil law and cultural norms can be bypassed, then why not? There would be no way for us to know who of our neighbors were married or just committing fornication–after all, the only proof we would have would be their word for it. How could the church discipline fornicators–for they might be married “in the sight of God” because they may have had a meeting of minds in a mental wedding? Or if brethren see a married man, whose wife becomes unfaithful to him, move out of his house and in with another woman without benefit of civil divorce, how could they charge him with adultery–he may have given his former unfaithful wife a “mental divorce.” Or are “mental divorces” only available to a spouse who has been wrongfully divorced?

Make no mistake about, the driving force behind the revisionist teaching that unjust divorces granted by civil powers are not really divorces, is the need to provide justification for unjustly divorced parties to later remarry. From a purely personal and sentimental point of view, how I could easily wish this were so. There are people whom I love dearly who are in that unfortunate position. How I wish there was a way that I could conscientiously accept their position and tell them they were OK. But my wishing it so, does not make it so. The facts have a way of getting in the way.

There are several things that those who believe one unjustly divorced may later mentally divorce the one who had unjustly divorced him need to consider. If this second divorce from this marriage can be just a mental act, why can not the initial divorce from that marriage just be mental? If one catches his wife sleeping around, why bother with the effort to get a divorce the conventional way? Why not just mentally put her away (it’s a whole lot less expensive) and then find another willing to live with him and they mentally and/or verbally commit themselves to each other as husband and wife and set up housekeeping–all without bothering with the nuisance of courthouse papers. Why can a divorce be mental only when a person has been unjustly divorced and not at other times? Why does the mental rule apply only to the breaking of marriages and not apply to the making of marriages?

Conclusion

Really, after all the arguments have been made and all justifications have been exhausted, one will still have to deal with the plain wording of the text that would require help to misunderstand–whether or not we are always consistent in applying it.

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery (Matt. 19:9).

One would need help to make “whosoever” mean only Christians and not aliens. Or to make “commits adultery” mean “covenant breaking” rather than immoral sexual activity. Or to make either divorce or marrying mean just mental or private informal acts bypassing civil ratification.

When we wipe away all emotionalism, verbal gymnastics and the “what-ifs” of extreme and unusual circumstances, Christ’s teaching is not that hard to understand and apply. If one divorces his wife for any reason other than fornication, he sins by “putting asunder” what God has joined together, whether or not he marries another (Matt. 19:6), then he further sins by committing adultery when and if he marries again. He also sins if he unjustly divorces and puts his wife in a position where she commits adultery when she marries again (Matt. 5:32)–for if anyone marries the divorced wife she (and the one she marries) commits adultery. Nor is there room in these passages for a second putting away of the person who is already “away” as a result of the first “putting away.”

The only person, according to the words of Jesus, who has a right to remarry is the person who has put away a fornicator–providing the one he marries has a right to marry. That should not be too hard to understand. Neither should it be hard to understand that in any “putting away,” someone is doing the “putting away” and the other is the one being “put away.” (Granted, there may be in some rare cases a mutual putting away by agreement.) And that if either the one who “puts away” (except for fornication) or the one who “is put away” marries again he or she commits adultery. There is nothing in the passages to allow for a post-fixed divorce–one where the one who “is put away” later fixes things to make him/her the one “who puts away.” How can one later “put away” the one from whom he or she has already been “away” since the first “putting away”?

Brethren, let us put aside sentimentalism and be content with what the text says and respect what it does not say and quit this business of revising, redefining, and complicating words and concepts to try to alleviate difficulties, alleged inequities, and hardships that might be caused by applying the text as written. Unless we do, besides violating Christ’s law, we may contribute to social chaos by teaching people that they can marry or divorce without the benefit of legal requirement and to say nothing of further splintering of those who profess to be trying to follow the New Testament order. We cannot afford either.