John MacArthur exemplifies everything I addressed in Theological Bullies (Then and Now) in his latest book, Freedom From Sin, gaslighting anyone who does not agree with his interpretation by utilizing the exact same two methods perfected by the Jewish theologians to maintain their power: (1) language bullying and (2) a claim to special status as the official interpreter of Scripture.
MacArthur is correct in stating that "Paul was merely using marriage as an analogy in Romans 7:2-3," just as he mentioned baptism incidentally in Romans 6:3-4 but was not actually talking about water or mode of baptism. However, MacArthur is reaching when he continues, "and didn't even raise the issue of divorce in the passage." Paul did not have to raise the issue of divorce because he did so in an earlier letter to the Corinthians:
"But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife."
This is the "definitive statement on marriage, divorce, and remarriage." For MacArthur and others to willfully ignore this statement, as well as 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3, is to be "on shaky interpretative grounds." MacArthur is guilty of projecting his own errors upon others who are exegeting and expositing Scripture correctly. He obviously believes himself to be, as Todd Friel continuously calls him, the Evangelical Pope.
MacArthur is also correct when he states, "Hermeneutics—the science and art of biblical interpretation—demands that definitive passages on divorce and remarriage ... be used to interpret other analogous passages." He is absolutely wrong, however, when he makes reference to Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:3-9 as being "definitive" passages on the issue. Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 are more definitive than the two passages in Matthew. The phrase "except for fornication" is ambiguous. First Corinthians 7:10-11, 39, and Romans 7:2-3 are crystal clear. The question people like MacArthur must then answer is, Did God say what He meant and mean what He said? Or was He merely flapping His gums for the sake of hearing Himself speak?
The phrase "except for fornication" exists only in the Gospel of Matthew, and it does so for a specific reason: the Gospel of Matthew was written to the Judaites and addresses their customs and beliefs. So many theologians acknowledge this fact, but then completely ignore it with their interpretations.
If MacArthur and others would bother paying attention to the actual words of Scripture, they would discover that everyone involved in a remarriage situation—all four people—are identified as committing adultery. The adultery is not taking place before the divorce, it is taking place after the divorce with the remarriage. MacArthur considers him to be "wise and intelligent," which is why the truth is hidden from him and shown to those he would consider "ordinary and uneducated."
Why do most people believe that the Bible teaches it is okay to divorce and remarry afterwards? Because the theologians have told them so. But anyone who can read and understand for themselves can see that this is not the case. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is unequivocally clear and irrefutable. So how do these theologians get the idea that Paul provides an occasion for divorce and remarriage in the following 5 verses (12-16)? They impose their thoughts, feelings, and desires upon God's holy Word. This is called eisegesis—a reading into the passage what simply is not there.
It is difficult to imagine how MacArthur fails to grasp this when he makes statements like this:
"Paul's point is simply this: A married person is bound by law to his or her spouse only for as long as they both live. If your spouse dies, you are no longer bound by law to him or her. You are not bound in marriage to a corpse for the rest of your life; the law of marriage binds people only while they live."
"Paul's point was simply that the law of marriage applies only as long as both partners are alive. When one of them dies, that legal contract is lo longer binding on the surviving spouse."
"Death permanently ends the law that binds two people in marriage. In fact many marriage ceremonies contain the words, "Till death do us part"—though unfortunately many couples are eliminating that portion of their wedding vows because they do not want to be obedient to that pledge. Paul's analogy here is simple and straight forward: Death ends a marriage."
It is difficult to believe one can be so ignorant when one makes statements like that. Death is the only thing that nullifies a marriage. Divorce does not. Again, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is absolutely crystal clear and irrefutable on this. Marriage is a picture of Christ and His Congregation and a picture of the Gospel, of forgiveness and reconciliation. Divorce and remarriage mar those pictures. The people who disagree with me here do not do so on any Scriptural grounds. They do so based on their own thoughts, feelings, desires, and especially based on their own sin. They are seeking to justify their own sinful actions instead of coming to the Lord, confessing their sin, and repenting thereof. Why do they do this? Pride!
MacArthur commits other errors in his new booklet, Freedom From Sin. He attempts to lump Romans 7:13 in with verses 7-12, ignoring the context and the fact this is the fourth rhetorical question that Paul poses. He then tries addressing Romans 7:14-25 apart from verse 13, which is what these verses are answering. With verses 14-25, MacArthur continues to promote the false belief and eisegetical interpretation that this is Paul sinning as a Christian, again ignoring the context, words, grammar, and statements used. If MacArthur understood what is being talked about in verses 7-12, he would understand what is going on in verses 13-25, especially verses 15 and 19 as they point back to and are connected with verses 7-12. If MacArthur bothered paying attention to the various contexts, he would find that his interpretation is at odds with the rest of Scripture. His interpretation of verses 14-25 contradicts everything Paul just said in Romans 6 and that he continues to say in Romans 8.
What does MacArthur fail to grasp about the statements made in these two verses?
"For I am not [performing repeatedly or habitually] (prasso) what I would like to do, but I am [purposing to do] (poieo) the very thing I hate."
"For the good that I want, I [purpose not to do] (poieo), but I [perform repeatedly or habitually] (prasso) the very evil that I do not want."
Do either of those statements sound like a Christian? No! If you are not performing repeatedly or habitually righteousness and are purposing not to do righteousness, does that sound like a Christian? If you purpose to do sin and perform repeatedly or habitually sin, does that sound like a Christian? Of course not! Only a fool would conclude this is Paul as a Christian and that this is the normal Christian life. Those two statements oppose everything we are taught in the New Testament. The normal Christian life is what we read in Romans 8.
Because the truth is not on their side, and they are incapable of having a serious, mature, respectful, intelligent, rational, honest conversation concerning the issues I raise in challenge against their traditions and theological interpretations, I have no doubt that should MacArthur's right hand thug, Phil Johnson, discover this post, he will resort to his typical bullying tactics involving denial, deflection, projection, manipulation, smearing, gaslighting, jamming, framing, ad hominem, name calling, character assassination, and the use of fallacious arguments that have no basis in reality. His ad hominem attacks against me (going after my character in order to circumvent what I am saying, in order to dodge and evade the issues, because they are unable to argue the main point and can never provide a reasonable refutation or an intelligent counter-argument) are a confession of intellectual bankruptcy.
When you hitch yourself to a certain team, even when they are doing bad you will force yourself to side with them. This is not the way of Christ. Regardless of whether someone is your spouse, your best friend, your child(ren), your team mate, or anything else, when they are in the wrong they need to be called on it. For you to avoid this because you are so committed to them, rather than to the truth, is to commit sin. Police officers are guilty of this even when they know one of their fellow officers stepped beyond the bounds of the law. Phil Johnson, Todd Friel, and others blindly pat MacArthur on the back and rush to defend him because they basically worship the ground he walks on. To them, he can do no wrong. These people need to repent of their idolatry and put their eyes on Christ Jesus alone.
The theologians do not have all the answers, and you would be wise not to put your trust in them and blindly believe everything they say. God gave you a brain to think for yourself. He gave you the Spirit to lead you, providing you humble yourself and submit to His leading. You have the ability to read and understand just like anyone else. Everyone is capable of committing error, but if you possess the least amount of character, integrity, and honour, you will admit your errors, reform your beliefs, and conform yourself and your beliefs to the truth. To ignore, deny, or reject the truth because of what some theologian told you is to be disobedient and rebellious. Is this how you learned Christ?