Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-09-13
DID CHRIST FORBID DIVORCE

The danger OF depending upon private
interpretations of ancient scripture and
OF applying TO present conditions in
struotiohs Intended for another age and
for special conditions, has been repeat
eddy pointed out In these columns The
misapplcat0n OF an isolated text
without regard TO the associated con-
text, has also been deplored and depre-
Gated We frequently receive requests
TO answer questions which need not be
asked, II the writer's would but make
themselves familiar with the whole
subject touched upon In the writings
which they quote, and thus learn their
purport and the reasons why they were
given
As nm example we will take Matthew
XIX; O. On that one verse has been built
up "a religious theory concerning d.
vorce, on which the whole Of Chrlsten-
dom has gone astray. The most powerful
of the religious organizations have laid
down the rigid rule, that divorce must
not be granted TO any persons except
for the cause mentioned In that text.
This has been enforced by ecclesiastical
edlcts to the extreme OF cruelty and
absurdity. 1t has been done under the
mistaken impression, that Christ laid
down this innexible law, and therefore
that II would be sinful and unchristan
to depart from IT,. But II the verses
preceding II are carefully examined, 1t
WIN be found that Jesus was answering
a question put to Him by certain Phar-
isees who came to him tempting him,
and saying unto him. Is II lawful for a
man to put away his wife for every
cause2' And further, why aid Moses
then command TO give writing Of a.
vorcement, and to put her away" The
Great Teacher replied TO those queries
and His answers must be understood
In that light.
The entire subject under consldera-
ton was the custom that had prevailed
in Israel from the days OF Moses under
which man who became dissatisfied
with his wife could simply give her "a
bill Of enforcement and send her away.
II was founded upon that part OF the
Mosaic code which will be found In
Deuteronomy XIV; IA The Pharlsses
wanted to know II that rule applied TO
every cause" Jesus showed that right
fully II would apply to but one cause.
that which he specified. And this was
not at discord with the law az given by
Moses. But because of the hardness
OF mems hearts the issuing OF bill
OF enforcement by the husband to the
wife was permitted TO extend over
wider grounds than was originally In
tended.
Now, II should be observed that the
Savior said nothing IN this connection.
as to the general subject OF divorce
granted by legitimate authority civil
or ecclesiastical, nor did he say, ac-
cording 20 the statement of Matthew.
that woman might not leave her hus-
band except for the one cause mention
ed. He was speaking to the question OF
the right of man 10 put away his
wife "for every cause" by his own act
and personal authority. The right and
power OF q properly constituted tri-
bunal was not taken into consideration
or mentioned in any way. The right
Of n woman TO refuse TO live with
man who abused her, failed to support
her made her life continual misery
and her home hell was not the top
&c Of discussion, Yet the answer of the
Savior TO the question Of the Pharlsees
has been stretched out of all rational
and fair proportions, and made TO do
duty In manner far from that which
he evidently intended.
But It will be asked, did lie not de-
clare: "What therefore God hath
Joined together, let not man put asun.
der2' Certainly, but did He say
that Deity, after joining together man
and woman, could not put them asun.
der? Cannot He who binds also un-
loose? And IL God bestows authority
upon one who represents Him by His
Divine commandment TO seal ON earth
and II she'll be sealed IN heaven, also
exercise the same authority to loose
on earth and II shall be loosed In hea-
ven? Christ taught the doctrine that
He Who received His Apostles received
Him, and he that received Christ re-
ceived also Hin that sent Christi II
so. that which they performed on earth
in the way that God appointed, would
be the same in the sight OF heaven as
II performed by the Father or the Son
In person. A marriage soemnlzed in
that manner and by that sealing pow
err would be a Joining together Of the
parties in the same sense as that union
which took place sin the beginning"
when God gave Eve unto Adam. No
man nor any earthly authority would
have the rightful power to put them
asunder. II such human pswer was
exercised, II would only stand Under
human law. hut would not be recog.
nized In the divine law.
But will II be argued or asserted. that
the marriages ordinarily performed,
whether by civil magistrate, or by
religious minister who has never re.
.eived an appointment from Deity to
ict in the divine name, can be truly
,lassed as those whom God hath
ininnA tnpafher2n Are thev any lnnrn