3/28/22

Did Jesus Disagree With Moses on Divorce? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/did-jesus-disagree-with-moses-on-divorce-5975/


Did Jesus Disagree With Moses on Divorce?

From Issue: R&R – July 2021

Over the centuries, critics of the Bible have devoted their energies to attempting to pinpoint contradictions and discrepancies in an effort to discredit its claim to inspiration. On one occasion in the life of Jesus on Earth, the Pharisees confronted Him and demanded to know if the Law permitted a man to divorce his wife “for just any reason?” Jesus immediately directed their attention to two Old Testament verses that provided the proper answer: Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24—which provided a negative answer as evidenced by Jesus’ own divine commentary on the two verses: “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6). Observe carefully: humans have no right to separate what God Himself has joined together, unless He gives His approval to do so. Hence, wholesale, carte blanche divorce is not sanctioned by God. This view of divorce coincides with God’s true attitude toward divorce in His forthright declaration through the prophet Malachi: “For the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce” (2:16).

Before Jesus could complete His response as to whether there are any exceptions to the general rule forbidding divorce, His questioners, no doubt stung by the stringency of Jesus’ answer, sought to justify their rejection of such a narrow viewpoint by calling attention to the Mosaic injunction in Deuteronomy 24: “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” Their words constitute an allusion to Deuteronomy 24. Read carefully the passage as it occurs in the Pentateuch:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

If this Old Testament passage provides a suitable answer to the Pharisees’ question, Jesus undoubtedly would have alluded to it. Instead, His response to their quibble clearly demonstrates that this passage does not provide the proper answer to their question concerning the propriety of divorce. He discounted the passage by offering a rebuttal to its applicability to the question at hand.

Moses Did Not Command Divorce

First, the Mosaic legislation, which included an acknowledgment that divorce was occurring in Israelite society, was a reflection of the hard hearts that existed at the time. No doubt, Egypt’s influence on the first two generations of Israelites included a relaxed view of divorce, establishing a practice that was underway even before God gave His covenant at Sinai. This acknowledgment in no way provided divine sanction for or approval of divorce. The Law neither commanded divorce nor established divorce as a right. After all, who would argue that God would overlook, sanction, or save those who possess hard hearts? Will anyone be in heaven that possesses a hard heart? To ask is to answer. Hence, Jesus’ pronouncement that the Mosaic provision pertained to “hard hearts” underscores the fact that it was not intended as a divine sanction of divorce—let alone a command (eneteilato) to do so. Such a command would, in fact, have been in direct conflict with God’s original intention as reflected in Jesus’ response on the occasion.

Meaning of permitted”?

But if Moses did not “command” divorce, why did Jesus assert that Moses “allowed” it? What did He mean by His use of the term “allowed” (ESV/RSV), “suffered” (KJV/ASV), or “permitted” (NKJV/NASB)? The underlying word provided by Matthew is epetrepsen. This Greek word means “to allow someone to do something, allow, permit,”1 “to give over, to leave to the entire trust or management of any one; hence, to permit, allow, suffer.”2 The English words “allow” and “permit” do not necessarily imply permission or approval. For example, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “allow” as “1a: permit; 1b: to fail to restrain or prevent.” For the latter definition, this example of usage is given: “allow the dog to roam.”3 You may not want your dog to roam the neighborhood, yet do nothing to prevent it. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “allow” as “to give permission for someone to do something, or to not prevent something from happening.”4 And the American Heritage Dictionary gives as the first meaning of “allow”: “To let do or happen; permit.”5 The word does not include the idea of sanction, authorization, or approval—let alone forgiveness. God allowed divorce in the sense that He tolerated it—like He does the wicked behavior of the world’s population throughout history. He “puts up with it.” He allows it to go on—without implying endorsement. As Greek expositor Alexander Bruce clarified—“permitted, not enjoined.”6

This understanding is confirmed by two additional Greek terms that are similarly used. In Paul’s address to the idolatrous Athenian philosophers, he courageously declared: “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). The Greek verb rendered “overlooked” (huperorao) is defined as “to overlook, disregard; to bear with,”7 “to indulgently take no notice of, overlookdisregard.”8 Paul was certainly not telling the Athenians that in the past God endorsed idolatry or did not reckon it as sin. Indeed, all those who entered eternity prior to Christianity in an idolatrous state will be eternally lost. Rather, Paul intended to impress his pagan audience with the fact that God had put up with a great deal of inexcusable polytheism through the centuries. But with the coming of Christianity, all who continued to worship false gods were under divine mandate to forsake their idolatry and turn to Christ.

The KJV translated the Greek word in this verse as “winked at”: “And the times of this ignorance God winked at.” What did “winked at” mean in 1611? Interestingly enough, William Shakespeare provides the answer. In his famous play Romeo & Juliet, the prince of Verona, Escalus, delivers a stinging rebuke to the grieving families who have gathered in the wake of the tragic deaths of their two children—deaths spawned by their two warring factions:

Where be these enemies? Capulet! Montague!
See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate,
That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love.
And I for winking at your discords too
Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish’d.9

Escalus had, in fact, on more than one occasion, intervened with stern rebukes to urge the warring factions to cease and desist their hostilities—but to no avail. Hence, he “winked” at their discords in the sense that he allowed, tolerated, and permitted them to continue without forcibly preventing them. He certainly did not endorse, approve, or forgive their discordant activities throughout the period in which they occurred. But he did not stop or physically restrain them. He had hoped that his repeated verbal admonitions would have been heeded.

A second Greek term that reinforces the proper meaning of Jesus’ use of the word “allowed/permitted” is the synonym which occurs three times in Paul’s dark portrait of the Gentile world in his letter to the Romans:

  • “God also gave them up to uncleanness” (1:24).
  • “God gave them up to vile passions” (1:26)
  • “God gave them over to a debased mind” (1:28).

The Greek term rendered “gave them up/over” (paradidomi) means “to give over, hand over, deliver up, turn over” and includes the idea to “abandon” as in “he abandoned them to impurity.”10 In addition to the three occurrences in Romans 1, the same word occurs in Stephen’s great speech before the High Priest and Jewish council, in which he described the generation that exited Egypt and constructed a golden calf to worship: “Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven” (Acts 7:42). A variety of English translation renderings make clear the meaning:

  • NRSV: “But God turned away from them and handed them over to worship the host of heaven”
  • NCV/ICB/EXB: “But God turned against them and did not try to stop them from worshiping the sun, moon, and stars.”
  • NIRV: “But God turned away from them. He let them go on worshiping the sun, moon and stars.”
  • NOG: ““So God turned away from them and let them worship the sun, moon, and stars.”
  • ERV: “But God turned against them and let them continue worshiping the army of false gods in the sky.”
  • DARBY/NASB1995: “But God turned and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven.”

Once again, it is plain to see that Jesus, Paul, and Stephen all referred to the same point, i.e., that God can tolerate and allow people to “go their own way” without His allowance implying endorsement, approval, or forgiveness.

“From the Beginning”

Second, observe that Jesus next redirected His questioners’ attention back to the two verses given in His initial response to their question—verses that pertain to the very “beginning” of the human race when God articulated His intention regarding marriage. His remark (“from the beginning it was not so”—vs. 8) presses the fact that God’s will for marriage is ultimately seen at the Creation when God articulated the guiding principle that answers the Pharisees’ question. Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 are intended to be normative injunctions enjoined upon all people for all time. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent presses this very point when he observes that the use of the perfect tense in Matthew 19:8 indicates a past action that continues to be active: “Notwithstanding Moses’ permission, the case has not been so from the beginning until now. The original ordinance has never been abrogated nor superseded, but continues in force.”11 In other words, the sole exception—the only ground for legitimate divorce—from the Garden of Eden to our present day, has always been fornication.12 This firm reality explains why even God divorced His spiritual spouse—Israel—on the sole grounds of adultery (Jeremiah 3:6-8).

The Meaning of Moses’ Directive

Third, careful analysis of the text of Deuteronomy 24 yields additional insights that clarify the Lord’s outright rejection of the passage as prototypical. Observe that the verses in question are lodged in a context of a particular type of legal material found in the Law of Moses known as casuistic law. This format for conveying legal obligations is couched in what logicians refer to as a “hypothetical syllogistic” arrangement—“If…then….”—in which the “if” portion of the statement is known as the “antecedent” while the “then” segment is the “consequent.” Grammarians identify the two segments as the “protasis” and the “apodosis.”

A protasis may have multiple conditions, joined together in English by the conjunction “and.” In Hebrew grammar, the conjunction is a single letter (the waw) which is prefixed to the subsequent word. Context must determine what conditions are part of the protasis, and at what point in the series the apodosis commences. In the case of Deuteronomy, however, it is evident that the protasis continues through verse 3 and the protasis (“then…”) commences with verse 4. Here are the conditions of the protasis:

  1. When a man takes a wife and marries her
  2. and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her
  3. and he writes her a certificate of divorce, and puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house
  4. and she has departed from his house
  5. and goes and becomes another man’s wife
  6. and if the latter husband detests her
  7. and he writes her a certificate of divorce, and puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife…

Each occurrence of “and” as bolded above is a waw in the Hebrew text. The apodosis now commences:13

Then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Observe carefully that the seven conditions of verses 1-3 are hypothetical, that is, they envision what some person or persons might do. They are not commands. They are not instructions on how to achieve a divorce. They assume that the perpetrator of the actions has made up his mind to divorce his wife regardless of God’s will on the matter—the “hard heart” of which Jesus spoke. Such is typically the case with the conditions of a protasis. For example, consider a similar construction in Exodus 21:29—

If the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.

The four conditions of the protasis are not actions that are approved by God. They merely reflect circumstances that could potentially occur among people in a farm society. The apodosis is designed to provide God’s attempt to manage the unpleasant situation by providing after-the-fact assistance—not indicate God’s sanction of the events that led up to the dilemma at hand. Far from providing authority for divorce, Deuteronomy 24 was intended to be a limitation on divorce—an attempt to minimize and lessen its frequency. In the process, it served as a measure designed to address the mistreatment of women: “It prevented the husband from later claiming rights over this ex-wife.”14

Having disposed of the Pharisees’ quibble concerning Deuteronomy 24, Jesus brought His response to its logical climax by applying God’s original marriage law to the specific matter of divorce: “And (kai—“but”) I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (vs. 9). In sharp contrast to the apparent widespread practice of divorce among the Jews of Jesus’ day, Jesus insisted that the original will of God, going all the way back to the beginning of the human race, was for a man and woman to remain married to each other for life. He forthrightly declared that the only way for that first marriage to terminate in a divorce that God approves is for one of the spouses (the innocent party) to divorce the other (the fornicator), solely on the ground of sexual infidelity. Jesus clarified for all people for all time Deity’s will concerning divorce: the one and only ground for divorce is illicit sexual intercourse. Hence, Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees’ original question (“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”) was “no.”

 Endnotes

1 Fredrick Danker (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition, p. 385, italics in orig.

2 Wesley J. Perschbacher, ed. (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 167.

3 The Merriam Webster Dictionary online, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allow.

4 Cambridge Dictionary online, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/allow.

5 American Heritage Dictionary, https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=allow.

6 Alexander Bruce (no date), The Synoptic Gospels in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1:246.

7 Perschbacher, p. 418.

8 Danker, p. 1034, italics in orig.

9 Act V, Scene iii, line 290ff. Other occurrences in Shakespeare of the use of “winked” are found in Cymbeline, V.iv.192; Hamlet, II.ii.137; Henry 5, V.ii.300; and King John, IV.ii.211. See https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/Searchresults.aspx?search=winking&WholeWordSearch=True.

10 Danker, p. 762; Perschbacher, p. 306.

11 Marvin Vincent (1946), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1:108, italics in orig.

12 No doubt Moses did not explicitly articulate this fact in his recounting of the events in the Garden since Adam and Eve were the only people on Earth and, hence, incapable of committing adultery.

13 A number of English translations demonstrate awareness of these grammatical principles and the commencement of the apodosis at verse 4. Among those that insert “then” at the beginning of verse 4 are the ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, NAB, and the Geneva Bible. The CEB has “in this case,” the CJB has “In such a case,” and the EHV has “in these circumstances.” The EXB, GNT, ICB, and NCV have “In either case.”

14 Jack Lewis (1978), “From the Beginning It Was Not So…” in Your Marriage Can Be Great, ed. Thomas Warren (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press), p. 415.


Published

“Bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). by Roy Davison

 


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/bringthemup.html



“Bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).

It is the responsibility of parents to discipline their children.

“Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of correction will drive it far from him” (Proverbs 22:15).

“The rod and rebuke give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother” (Proverbs 29:15).

“He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly” (Proverbs 13:24).

“Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul” (Proverbs 29:17).

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

“Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Hebrews 12:9-11).

Let us examine an important text about raising children: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother,’ which is the first commandment with promise: ‘that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.’ And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1-4).

“Children obey your parents in the Lord.”

Children are told to obey their parents and their parents must teach them to obey.

To do this effectively, the parents must give the child a good example by obeying God themselves!

The man must fulfil his responsibility as leader in the home. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Ephesians 5:25). “Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them” (Colossians 3:19).

And the wife must submit to her husband. “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (Colossians 3:18). “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church, and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:23, 24).

Notice that the children are to obey both parents. But how can children obey their parents if the parents tell them different things?

When there is conflict between the parents, some bad parents even use the children as a way to rebel against the other parent. This is very bad for the children and the children will try to use one parent against the other. If one parents tells them to do something, they will run to the other parent.

Parents must support each other’s authority. As head of the house, the father may overrule something his wife has said, but he may only do so if it is something very important. Otherwise he must support what his wife tells the children to do and punish them if they do not obey their mother.

The wife may not contradict what the father tells the children to do, but must support his authority. If she really thinks he is wrong, she should discuss it with him in private, and not in the presence of the children.

This all must be done in love. Then the children can learn to obey their parents.


“‘Honor your father and mother,’ which is the first commandment with promise: ‘that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth’” (Ephesians 6:2, 3).

Children are to obey their parents for the child’s own good. Children lack experience and can end up having a very bad life, and may even die young because of not obeying their parents. “The eye that mocks his father, and scorns obedience to his mother, the ravens of the valley will pick it out, and the young eagles will eat it” (Proverbs 30:17).

Parents who fail to teach their children to obey, harm their children and themselves. I know a couple in another country who told us once: “We do not invite that family into our home because their children do not behave. They pick up things that they should leave alone, and even break things. They do not obey their parents.” If you do not teach your children to obey, they and you will suffer. The children will also have trouble in school and in society if they do not learn obedience. And later they are more likely to also disobey God.


“And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath” (Ephesians 6:4).

There are various ways that a father can provoke his children to wrath: if he is a hypocrite and demands things of his children that he does not do himself; if he is unfair in his dealing with his children; if he favors one child above another; if he is lazy and does not meet his responsibilities in the home. Children are not stupid. They know if they are being mistreated by their parents and this can make them very angry. This is not referring to a child not liking punishment. Of course a child does not like being punished. That is the whole idea of punishment! But if the father does something that the child knows is not right, it can cause the child to develop a deep-seated anger. Fathers must avoid provoking their children to wrath.

I want to show you an elephant. This paper weight is valuable to me personally because I remember it being on my father’s desk when I was seven years old. There was something else on his desk for which I had great respect: a ruler. My father spanked me with that ruler when I did something that was very bad. When I did “little things” that were wrong, my mother would give me a swat on my behind with her hand or she might even give me a real spanking with her hand. But if I did something serious, she would say: “I’m going to have to tell your father about that!” And then I knew I was in big trouble! But I never remember being punished by either of my parents when I did not know in my heart that I deserved it. I am thankful that my parents loved me enough to discipline me when I was a child.

Parents must have great respect for the children God gives them: “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 18:10).

How you talk to your children is important. “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” (Colossians 4:6). This also applies to how we talk to our children.

Children may never be abused verbally! My parents always treated me with respect, and I never remember either of my parents saying anything to me that was demeaning or caused me to question whether they respected me and loved me.

If you holler and scream at your children. They will holler and scream back at you. If you say disrespectful things to your children, that teaches them to say disrespectful things to others, including you.

You must be consistent and not make fake threats. If for example you say: “You do that one more time and you are getting a spanking.” They do it one more time, but you do not give them a spanking. That teaches them not to pay attention to anything you say. Be very careful about saying what you are going to do unless you really plan to do it.

I must also point out that there is a big difference between a spanking and a beating. You may never beat your child. A beating causes physical injury. A spanking does not cause injury. There is a good, well-padded place that is suitable for a spanking. It hurts a little but does no harm.

Also, never punish your child while you are out of control because of anger. It is alright to be angry, if you still have control of yourself and do not do or say something wrong because of your anger. It is good for a child to know that certain things make his parents angry. Certain things we do, make God angry!


“Bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).

This means that we are to teach them about God. We spend much time and effort providing our children with nourishing food for their bodies. They also need spiritual food. Admonition refers to encouragement to do what is right. Training refers to teaching them to actually do what is right. We must know the word of God ourselves to teach it to our children. And we must live according to the word of God because example is the most powerful teacher.

Moses emphasized this to the people of Israel.

“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deuteronomy 6:6, 7).

“Therefore you shall lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deuteronomy 11:18, 19).

Bringing up children in the training and admonition of the Lord is a full-time job! Let us pray for wisdom and help.
Amen.

Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

"CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE CHURCH" Denominationalism by Mark Copeland

 









"CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE CHURCH"

Denominationalism

INTRODUCTION
  1. A great challenge confronting the church is denominationalism...
    1. According to one account, there are more than 38,000 different denominations!
    2. Different religious organizations, bearing many different religious names
    3. Hindering the spread of the gospel ("Why, you Christians can't even agree!")
  2. Denominationalism confronted the church early on...
    1. Many think that it started with the Protestant reformation (ca. 1517 AD)
    2. Properly understood, its origins can be traced to the second century AD

[What is denominationalism? Why is it wrong? Such questions this study will address...]

  1. DEFINING DENOMINATION AND DENOMINATIONALISM
    1. WHAT IS A DENOMINATION...?
      1. "A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy." - The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
      2. By their common name and tie to a governing body above the local congregation, they are "denominated" from all congregations that do not submit to the same authority
      3. Some examples:
        1. The Roman Catholic Church is a denomination made up of those churches that submit to the pope in Rome
        2. The Eastern Orthodox Church is a denomination made up of those churches that submit to the patriarch of Constantinople
        3. The Anglican Church of England is a denomination made up of those churches that submit to the archbishop of Canterbury
        4. The Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) is made up of those churches that submit to the synod in Missouri
        -- A denomination is a group of congregations that are joined together under some governing body, all wearing the same distinctive name
    2. WHAT IS DENOMINATIONALISM...?
      1. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
        1. "The tendency to separate into religious denominations"
        2. "Advocacy of separation into religious denominations"
        3. "Strict adherence to a denomination; sectarianism"
      2. For the purpose in this series, I will be applying the term to any approval of the denominational division which exists today
        1. Many in denominations today are not all that devoted to their denominational principles or interests
        2. But by membership in a denomination they implicitly advocate separation into religious denominations

        [Is denominationalism really a challenge confronting the church? Some consider it a blessing: e.g., "Join the church of your choice!" But from a Biblical perspective, consider...]

  2. WHY DENOMINATIONALISM IS WRONG
    1. IT IS UN-SCRIPTURAL...
      1. That is, it is without Scriptural support
        1. There is no basis in the Bible for local churches being divided up into various denominational bodies
        2. There is no denomination that can go to the Bible and say, "See that passage? There is our church (denomination)!"
      2. In the New Testament...
        1. Local congregations were independent, autonomous (self-governing)
        2. Church organization was limited to within the local congregation
        3. With elders (also known as pastors, bishops, overseers, presbyters) appointed to oversee only the congregation of which they were members - cf. Ac 20:17,28; 1Pe 5:1-2
      3. The only authority above the local church in the NT was Christ and His apostles
        1. Once the church began, apostles were not replaced after they died - e.g., Ac 12:1-2
        2. But through the Word of God, the authority of Christ and His apostles continues
        -- Individuals, synods, conferences, etc., that presume to usurp authority over local churches today do so without Scriptural authority
    2. IT IS ANTI-SCRIPTURAL...
      1. Not only is it without scriptural support, it is contrary to what the Bible teaches
      2. It is contrary to the prayer of Jesus for unity among His believers - Jn 17:20-23
      3. It is condemned by Paul in his epistle to the church at Corinth
        1. There are to be no divisions among believers - 1Co 1:10-13
        2. Sectarianism is a sign of carnality - 1Co 3:3-4
      4. It opposes the efforts of Christ on the cross! - Ep 2:14-16
        1. Jesus died to break down the wall of division
        2. Jesus died to reconcile man to God in ONE body
        -- Just as our sin works against the efforts of Christ on the cross (for He died to put away sin), so does denominational division!
    3. IT IS HARMFUL TO THE CAUSE OF CHRIST...
      1. Jesus knew that unity among His disciples would be "the final apologetic"
        1. Cf. "that the world may believe" - Jn 17:21
        2. In view of Jesus' words, we should not be surprised when unbelievers are slow to accept the gospel coming from a divided church
      2. Many point to the divided condition of those professing to follow Christ...
        1. Atheists and agnostics use religious division as an excuse not to believe in God
        2. Muslims, Jews, etc. often use denominationalism reasons not to believe in Christ
      3. Denominationalism has also given support and encouragement to the cults
        1. Mormonism started in reaction to the denominationalism of Joseph Smith's day
        2. Those who call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses" use religious division to encourage people to follow their own strictly-controlled organization
        -- How can any true disciple of Christ support such a harmful concept?
    4. OTHERS WHO VIEWED DENOMINATIONALISM AS WRONG...
      1. Martin Luther, a leader of the Reformation Movement:
        "I ask that men make no reference to my name, and call themselves not Lutherans, but Christians. What is Luther? My doctrine, I am sure, is not mine, nor have I been crucified for any one. St. Paul, in 1 Cor. 3, would not allow Christians to call themselves Pauline or Petrine, but Christian. How then should I, poor, foul carcass that I am, come to have men give to the children of Christ a name derived from my worthless name? No, no, my dear friends; let us abolish all party names, and call ourselves Christians after Him Whose doctrine we have." - Hugh Thomason Kerr, A Compend of Luther's Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943, p. 135)
      2. John Wesley, another reformation leader, among whose followers are Methodists, Wesleyans, etc.:
        "Would to God that all party names, and unscriptural phrases and forms which have divided the Christian world, were forgot and that the very name [Methodist] might never be mentioned more, but be buried in eternal oblivion." - John Wesley, Universal Knowledge, A Dictionary and Encyclopedia of Arts, Science, History, Biography, Law, Literature, Religions, Nations, Races, Customs, and Institutions, Vol. 9, Edward A. Pace, Editor (New York: Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1927, p. 540)
      3. Charles Spurgeon, one of the greatest Baptist preachers who ever lived:
        "I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living! I hope that the Baptist name will soon perish, but let Christ's name last forever." - Spurgeon Memorial Library, Vol. I., p. 168
      -- Note well: these individuals were bemoaning the use of denominational titles, not organizational ties per se
CONCLUSION
  1. But it is organizational ties above the local church that leads to denominationalism...
    1. Once local churches are "organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy", denominational names soon follow!
    2. And so it is that denominationalism with its religious division continues to grow!
  2. If local churches are to successfully confront the challenge of denominationalism, they must...
    1. Remain independent, autonomous (self-governing) congregations
    2. Refuse organizational associations with other churches
    3. Refrain from using denominational names for their churches
  3. Churches that succeed in avoiding denominationalism are more likely to be...
    1. Nothing more than local churches of Christ
    2. Christians who simply seek to follow Jesus as His disciples
    3. The answer to the prayer of our Lord for unity among believers - cf. Jn 17:20-21

But there is another challenge, one that is closely related to denominationalism, which we shall consider in our next study: Sectarianism!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2022

Truth: Of human and divine origin

 

Interesting, very interesting. All the above statements are true, but this is not a comprehensive list. Well, right about now, you might ask:”what is missing? Spiritual truth is my answer. Truth as found only in the Bible. Obviously, statements like the above are found in the book of Proverbs and similar instructions in the book of Ecclesiastes, but I like to think of Jesus when I consider such things.


Then, there is the following passage, with the last verse being the cornerstone…


John 17 ( World English Bible )

13 But now I come to you, and I say these things in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves.

14 I have given them your word. The world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that you would take them from the world, but that you would keep them from the evil one.

16 They are not of the world even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth.


The Bible teaches you what God wants you to know and the purity of its message will change you. I am not saying that you will be a perfect person, but the more you learn about God’s desire for your life, the better you will be. After all, isn’t that the crux of living; taking what you have and using it the best way possible. The perfect application of this concept is made perfect by the designer of everything- GOD. So, listen to what HE has to say and not just some human musings. Remember, Jesus also said:


Matthew 7 ( WEB )

21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

22 Many will tell me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?’

23 Then I will tell them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.’

24 “Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock.

25 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn’t fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn’t do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand.

27 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”


Your friend,

Gary