Take a look at the following proposition for debate:

“The Bible teaches that if a man puts away his scriptural wife for a reason other than fornication and then commits fornication, the original wife may not remarry.”

Two brethren have signed their names to this: one to affirm, one to deny. Obviously, both brethren cannot be right. Yet, we have brethren – brethren who have chastised others for accepting fellowship in disagreement over other aspects of this issue – telling us that this is simply an issue of “application” that should not cause fellowship to be broken. They chastise brethren over differing on important “moral and doctrinal” issues, but turn around and tell us that what is denied in this proposition does not represent anything “moral” or “doctrinal.” Whom do they think they are fooling?

To argue that this is just “application” and not “doctrine” is to betray a serious misunderstanding as to what doctrine is. Doctrine is simply teaching (not just "important" teaching). When one teaches the above as an “application,” that teaching becomes, by definition, doctrine! Anything that anyone teaches is by its very definition doctrine. To try to skirt around that by saying it is “application” is, I think, flawed on a foundational level. It reminds me of that old gospel/doctrine distinction that some floated around in the past.

Furthermore, can anyone say, with a straight face, that this does not involve something “moral”? Remember, one brother is right, the other is wrong. If the brother denying this proposition is wrong, then he is guilty of teaching something that would lead others into adultery. Is that moral enough? I’d like to see someone deny that an issue involving marriage and possible adultery has nothing to do with doctine or morality. Again, this is skirted by saying it is just an application difference. Since when is it okay to teach a misapplication of something, when that misapplication would lead another into sin? One brother I spoke with a few years ago argued this “difference in application” position, while he opposed others on the grounds that they taught a different “law” altogether. My question was simply this: what is the difference between teaching a different law that leads to adultery, and teaching a different application of the law that leads to adultery? If they both lead to adultery, aren’t they both equally wrong? Is “law adultery” different from “application adultery”? Is one bad while the other is neutral? Would someone care to venture a scripture in support of this? Those who argue that they can disagree over the above proposition, then turn around and chastise others for saying they can have “unity in doctrinal diversity” have little credibility in my mind. Does the adage “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” ring a bell?

As to the proposition itself, doesn’t Matthew 5:32 pretty much say just that? One who denies this proposition is basically arguing that a divorce can take place, not for the cause of fornication, and that would not prohibit the (presumably) innocent party from later remarrying if the one who initially did the putting away later committed fornication. Yet Matthew
5:32 says that one who puts away a spouse “causes her to commit adultery” when that putting away was not for the cause of fornication. Then, “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Does this apply only when the party who did the initial putting away never commits fornication? Is the application of the passage changed if he later commits fornication after he has already put her away and caused her to commit adultery? When a divorce has occurred for some reason other than fornication, there is no permission for remarriage. Period. One may argue that this was not a real divorce, but by the Lord’s words He Himself called it such, and I’m willing to let it rest there.

Doy Moyer