TRUE CHRISTIAN BAPTISM ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY

TRUE CHRISTIAN BAPTISM ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY

TRUE CHRISTIAN BAPTISM ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY Most professing born again believers falsely purport that water baptism is only a symbolic act with no real significance in the life of the believer. While it is true that water baptism has symbolic import, it is also true that water baptism has functional purpose. According to scripture, true Christian water baptism identifies the believer with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Water baptism is thus central to the Christian Faith, and necessary for true conversion. Therefore if one fails to be baptized correctly, according to the scriptures, he or she has failed to appropriate the efficacy of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ into his or her life. The following scriptures prove that water baptism in the Name of Jesus identifies believers with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ: "Don't you know, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." Romans 6:3-5 "Beware lest any man cheat you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him (Christ) dwells all the fullness of the Deity in Bodily Form. And you are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are raised with him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, has he made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses..." Colossians 2:8-13 The above scriptures plainly prove that water baptism into Jesus Christ has the functional purpose of baptizing us into the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus. Hence the New Testament Scriptures teach that we receive true Christian Baptism in order to be raised from the deadness of our former lives to make us spiritually alive to walk in newness of life. The circumcision made without hands is clearly water baptism which puts off the body of the sins of the flesh. Jesus informed Nicodemus that it is absolutely mandatory for one to be born again of the water and of the Spirit in order to see and enter into the Kingdom of God. Note how the following scriptures perfectly correlate with the words of Jesus Christ found in John 3:3,5: "Truly, Truly, I say unto you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.....Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is WATER; what does hinder me to be baptized? Acts 8:36 "Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 10:47,48 "...eight souls were saved by WATER. The like figure whereunto even BAPTISM DOES ALSO NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the dirt of the body but the answer of a good conscience toward God) BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST..." 1 Peter 3:20,21 "Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word by established." 2 Corinthians 13:1 Since the scriptures alone are our sole authority as to what we are to believe, it is imperative that all professing Christians turn away from the traditions and opinions of the masses in order to reflect upon what the scriptures themselves have to say. We must be willing to "let God be true, but every man a liar...(Romans 3:4)." THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH BAPTIZED CONVERTS WITHOUT DELAY Since water baptism was a divine mandate given by Jesus Christ as an essential part of the Great Commission, the apostles and evangelists of the first century church baptized all of their new converts immediately after they received the gospel through faith and repentance. There was never a delay, nor a period of time in which the new converts were told to wait to receive more religious instructions prior to baptism. Consider the following examples found in the book of Acts: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this perverse generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:38-41 "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip..." Acts 8:12,13 Upon the selfsame day of Cornelius' conversion and the Gentiles with him, the apostle Peter straightly commanded, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 10:47,48 "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized..." Acts 16:14,15 "...Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straightway." Acts 16:30-33 "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." Acts 18:8 "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believed not shall be damned." Mark 16:16 "...finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. And he said unto them, Unto what then were you baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19:1-5 The above scriptures provide solid proof that the apostles invariably preached the essentiality and urgency of water baptism to all of their new converts who believed in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The honest reader can clearly observe the connection between belief and water baptism. True belief in Jesus Christ and water baptism into Christ are inseparably linked together. The apostle Paul clearly solidifies this truth when he informed the Ephesian disciples "that they should believe...on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." All those who truly believe on the Lord Jesus should be baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus without any delay. WHAT ABOUT BAPTISM INTO THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT? Our Lord Jesus Christ clearly commanded the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Did the apostles fail to obey Christ's command when they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus? If the apostles were in error when they always baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, then there would be a clear contradiction within the pages of the Bible. Does God's Word contradict itself? Or are many misinterpreting the Word of God? Let's take a closer look at Matthew 28:19. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Notice that the apostles of Christ were commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus did not say, "in the names of the Father, Son, and Spirit." He clearly stated, "in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit." The titles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not names at all. They are titles or positions that God holds. He is our Father as the creator, Son as our redeemer manifest in the flesh, and Holy Spirit as God's indwelling Spirit within the Church. No one in their right mind would sign a check by writing, "Father," or "Son," or "Spirit." There are many fathers, many sons, and many spirits who are holy (the angels of God and born again believers who are truly living for God have holy spirits). Any grammarian would state that the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not names. There must be a Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We know that the name of the Son is Jesus. We also know that the meaning of the name of Jesus means "Jehovah Saves." Scripture further states that Jesus came in his Father's Name. John 5:43 states that Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name, and you receive me not..." Therefore when we put all of the scriptures together we can clearly understand that they do not contradict each other at all. They fit together in perfect harmony much like a child fits many pieces of a jig saw puzzle together in perfect harmony. When a Pastor or Elder carries out the divine command to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he will baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ. For Jesus, meaning "Jehovah Saves," is the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. It is truly enlightening when one considers that the very passage of scripture that the Roman Catholic Church used to change the mode of water baptism and formulate the false doctrine of a Trinity of three divine people actually proves the Oneness of God, the full deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and water baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ. For Jesus' command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit proves that the singular name of Jesus Christ is the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. All three titles or manifestations of God comprise the One Supreme Being we call Jehovah God. There cannot be three divine Jehovah's. Jesus is not a second divine person of God. Nor is Jesus Jehovah Junior. The scriptures plainly declare that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the "Alpha and Omega, ... which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty (Rev. 1:8). And again the scriptures declare that our wonderful Jesus is "the beginning and the end, the first and the last (Rev. 22:13)." The Roman Catholic Church developed the false creedal doctrine of the Trinity which states that our Jesus is "the second person of a Trinity." A phrase which clearly contradicts inspired scripture and is no where to be found in the Bible. One might argue that the concept of the Trinity is taught in the Bible. I certainly agree that the concept of the plurality of God's Might and Majesty cannot be denied in scripture. Nor can we deny the fact that the One True God created all human beings after his own image and likeness. Since man is a tripartite being of spirit, soul, and body - so also God is a tripartite Being manifested to us as Father, Son (The Word Incarnate), and Holy Spirit. The fact that Adam was created as one person in the image and likeness of God (not three persons with three heads) proves that God is also One Person. The whole concept of calling God three divine co-equal, co-eternal persons is completely foreign to the Bible. It is a false and misleading invention of the devil. It leads to a pseudo form of Christian Baptism which takes the saving Name of Jesus Christ out. Just as the devil used the Sanhedrin Council to command the apostles not to teach or preach in the name of Jesus, so the devil used the Roman Catholic Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and others to command that it is heresy to preach and teach baptism in the name of Jesus. For centuries millions of genuine Christians have died at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church for their so called "heretical" Jesus Name Baptismal Teaching. The devil hates the name of Jesus as he fully knows that there is salvation, power, and efficacy in no other name. Take out the name and you take out the blood. Faith in Jesus Christ and baptism into the name of Jesus Christ are inseparably linked together. The devil who "deceives the whole world" (Revelation 12:9) is deceiving multitudes of professing Christians into bypassing the only "door into the sheepfold." Jesus Christ is the only doorway into the Kingdom of God. He that "climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber (John 10:1)." Friend, Jesus is the only door to the Father. If you truly believe on Jesus as your Savior, the scriptures command you to "be baptized... in the Name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38)." "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12)." When we consider that the apostles always baptized all new converts in the name of Jesus Christ, we are forced to conclude that the apostles had perfect understanding as to the meaning of baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore Jesus must be the name of all three titles or offices of the One True God. What a powerful proof of the Deity of Christ and of the Oneness of God? Apostolic Faith Christians teach and practice water baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ for the same reason that most Evangelicals teach and practice water baptism by full body immersion. Evangelicals baptize by immersion because nowhere in the Bible can we find anyone being baptized any other way. All who were baptized in the Bible were completely immersed under water. Apostolic Christians use this same reason for their firm conviction that true Christian water baptism must be taught and practiced in the name of Jesus Christ. How can the Holy Scriptures lie in any way? How can anyone dare state that first century Apostles of Christ were in error when they invariably taught and practiced water baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ? We know that the Apostles wrote our New Testament Scriptures. Those who believe that the Apostles were in error for baptizing in the Name of Jesus would be stating that the Word of God is lying to us by advocating false Christian Baptism. The Bible cannot be wrong or our whole Christian Faith would be brought into question. Those who claim that God does not care one way or the other how the Church baptizes must ask themselves some poignant questions. What happened to King Saul when he did not carry out the LORD'S command? What happened to King Asa when he presumptuously entered The Holy Place? What happened to Uzzah when he disobeyed the Word of God by touching the ark of the covenant? Remember that God's Word was in the ark of the covenant. Those who try to touch God's Word by changing it to suit their own theology are in danger of the same judgment as Uzzah. What happened to Achan and his family when he transgressed the commandment of the LORD? What happened to Ananias and Sapphira when they lied to God? When we lie to God's people about water baptism are we not lying to God? Jesus stated that when a professing Christian does something either good or bad to His brethren, he has done it unto Him (See Matthew 25:40-46). How can a Pastor face God in judgment when he has lied to God's people about water baptism? God forbid that we should be found liars and false witnesses of God's Word. WATER BAPTISM 1. In the Titles, Father, Son & Holy Spirit? - or - 2. In the Name of the Lord Jesus? Which of the above teachings were practiced by the Apostles and Evangelists of the first century Church? Below are two columns for listing the scriptures where the Apostles and Evangelists of the Early Church either taught or practiced water baptism: IN THE NAME OF JESUS FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins..." Acts 2:38 "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 8:16 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 10:48 "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19:5 "...so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism..." Rom. 6:3,4 "In whom also you are circumcised...with the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism..." Col. 2:11,12 "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Gal. 3:26,27 "And whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus..." Col.3:17 The above Bible evidence proves that True Christian Water Baptism must be carried out in the Name of Jesus Christ. Churches that opt to baptize by stating, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," are not actually using the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at all. They are merely repeating the command of Christ as recorded in Matthew 28:19. The name (not names) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has to be Jesus. The actions of the apostles prove this to be true. Otherwise there would be a flagrant contradiction within the pages of inspired scripture. All Ministers who teach that the apostles were in error by baptizing in the name of Jesus are doing great violence to the Biblical Doctrine of the Infallibility of The Holy Scriptures. For if we say that we believe that the Bible is truly inspired by God, then there can never be any contradictions found within it's pages. Hence, the actions of the apostles reveal true fulfillment and obedience to the command of Christ in Matthew 28:19 without any contradiction. WATER BAPTISM SHOULD YOU BE IMMERSED OR SPRINKLED? Below are two columns listing the mode of water baptism found in the new testament: IMMERSION SPRINKLING "And John also was baptized in Aenon...because there was MUCH WATER THERE." John 3:23 "They went down both into the water...and he baptized him." Acts 8:38 "They were come up out of the water." Acts 8:39 "And were baptized of him in Jordan (a river), confessing their sins." Matthew 3:6 "And were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5 "...Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan." Mark 1:9 "And straightway, coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened..." Mark 1:10 "We are buried with him by baptism..." Rom. 6:4 The Bible Evidence gives absolutely no indication that anyone was every baptized by sprinkling in the New Testament. All of the evidence points overwhelmingly to full body immersion. The Greek word for baptism is "baptizo," which literally means to "immerse" or "submerge." The Greek word for sprinkle is "rantizo," which literally means to "sprinkle." If Christians were suppose to be sprinkled when baptized, why did not God have the inspired writers of the New Testament use the word "rantizo" when referring to water baptism? Yet the Biblical writers always used the Greek word "baptizo" for water baptism. Many translations of the Bible use the word "immersion" rather than Baptism because this is the exact meaning of the word. The Bible does not say, "be rantizoed [Sprinkled] in the Name of Jesus," it clearly commands Christians to "be baptizoed [Immersed] in the Name of Jesus." The actions of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles prove that Biblical Water Baptism is by Immersion only, not by sprinkling. TRUE CHRISTIAN BAPTISM ACCORDING TO HISTORY By Pastor S. S. Ritchie Many modern day Pastors and Teachers have falsely reported that the "Jesus Only" Baptism is a "New Issue"invented by twentieth century Pentecostal Heretics. We must remember that the way of truth has always been evil spoken of. The book of Acts records "as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against(Acts 28:22)." Not only is the Jesus Name mode of water baptism clearly taught in the Bible, it was clearly taught and practiced by the majority of believers in the first two centuries of the Christian Church. The historical evidence proves that this truth of God's Word has continued to be taught and practiced in every century since the days of the first century Apostolic Church. The following quotations from the annals of history not only prove that water baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ was the oldest form of New Covenant Water Baptism but that this truth continued throughout the Centuries of the Age of Grace. The annals of history further prove that the Earliest Christians believed that water baptism was necessary for true salvation. The great preponderance of historical scholars agree that the Jesus Name form of water baptism was the oldest form of baptism held by The Church. A recent article entitled "Baptism Into the Name of Jesus and Early Christology" states: "There is little doubt that baptism was practiced by the first Christians as a kind of initiatory right, when they received new believers into their community. Also, we can be quite certain that this baptism was given into the name of Jesus." Church Historian, Kenneth Latourette, A History of Christianity - page 193 - affirms that the Post Apostolic Christians [Those who lived within the centuries immediately following the death of the original apostles] believed that water baptism was necessary for salvation: "Baptism was believed to wash away all sins committed before it was administered. After baptism, the Christian was supposed not to sin." Latourette further acknowledges from the writings of the Post Apostolic Bishops: "Baptism seems to have been regarded as requisite for the remission of sins and for the new birth through which alone one could enter the Kingdom of God." The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states with respect to the teachings of the first and second Century Christians:: "The dominant ideas were those of forgiveness of sin, regeneration, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. . . The change effected by baptism was attributed to the 'name' and to the water, which were regarded as actually effective and not merely symbolic." The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics further acknowledges: "The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion. . . in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands." The book, Early Christian Baptism, page 389 acknowledges: "In connection with the name. . . the question of formula arises. The earliest known formula is 'the name of the Lord Jesus. . ." The Hastings Dictionary of the Bible admits that one could draw the following conclusion from the historical evidence: "The original form of words was 'into the name of Jesus Christ' or 'the Lord Jesus.' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development. . ." The second century book entitled, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, written by a second century Presbyter from Asia Minor gives the following account of water baptism: ". . . in the name of Jesus Christ." Although "Acts of Paul and Thecla is acknowledged to be a fictitious novel, the account of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ gives support to the belief that this mode of baptism was common in the second century churches of Asia Minor. Church Historian, Otto Heick, in "A History of Christian Thought" - pages 54, 62, 27 - observed that the Post Apostolic Fathers taught that "baptism confers the forgiveness of sins." was considered "a washing of forgiveness and a regeneration." and that which "brings pardon and the new life, and is therefore necessary for salvation." Heick further acknowledges: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The First Century Epistle of Barnabas (unanimously believed by the early Christian Bishops to be written by the 1st century companion of the apostle Paul) records that water baptism is for the remission of sins: "Concerning the water, indeed, it is written, in reference to the Israelites, that they should not receive that baptism which leads to the remission of sins, but should procure another for themselves. The prophet therefore declares, 'Be astonished, O heaven, and let the earth tremble at this, because this people has committed two great evils: they have forsaken Me, a living fountain, and have hewn out for themselves cisterns." The Ante-Nicene Father, Volume 1, page 144. Again The Epistle of Barnabas records (on page #144; Volume 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers): "Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross and have gone down into the water. . .we indeed descent into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the (fear of God) and trust in Jesus in our spirit." The Early Second Century Epistle of Ignatius To The Ephesians records (on page 56, Volume 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers): "For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Spirit. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water." The early second century book entitled "The Shepherd of Hermas" records (on page 14, Volume 2 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers): "Why was the tower built upon waters. . .Hear then why the tower is built upon the waters. It is because your life has been, and will be saved through water. For the tower was founded on the word of the almighty and glorious Name. . ." Again The Shepherd of Hermas records (on page 49& 50, Volume 2 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers): "They were obliged. . . to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the Kingdom of God. Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when re receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal then, is the water: they descent into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the Kingdom of God. . . All the nations that dwell under heaven were called by hearing and believing upon the name of the Son of God. Having, therefore, received this seal, they had one understanding and one mind; and their faith became one, and their love one. . . On this account the building of the tower became of one color, bright as the sun." Irenaeus, the late second century Bishop of Lyons records (on page 574, Volume 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers): "It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." Justin Martyr, a mid second century Christian Teacher believed that baptism was necessary for salvation (page 183, Volume 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers): "they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. . .they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.' . . .And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our Parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe." Tertullian, the second century Bishop of North Africa also believed that baptism is necessary for salvation (page 669, Volume 3 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers): "Happy is our sacrament of water, in that , by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . But we. . after the example of our Jesus Christ, are born in water. . ." Although some of the above Christians writers began teaching false doctrines, all of the Early Christian Teachers unanimously believed that it was necessary for all to be baptized by water in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. They quoted the words of Jesus in John 3:5 to prove that it was necessary to be born again of the water in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. Even Martin Luther and the Anabaptists continued to believe in baptismal regeneration for the remission of sins. The rejection of the necessity of water baptism for salvation came during the later Protestant Reformation. It is interesting to note that Tertullian is given credit for beginning the development of the creedal definition of the trinity. Twenty first century Trinitarian Christian Believers must acknowledge that all of the founding Fathers who developed their Trinitarian Doctrine unanimously believed that water baptism was necessary for salvation. Even the Trinity Dogma defined at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople includes an anathema clause which pronounces a curse on all who reject the Catholic Baptismal Formula into the Trinity. Protestants should know that all who reject baptismal regeneration for the remission of sins are also anathamatized under the Trinitarian Creed. Oneness believers are everywhere persecuted for rejecting the Nicene and Constantinopoliltan Creed. Yet Protestant, Evangelical, and Trinitarian Pentecostal Groups who reject Oneness Believers as heretical for their refusal to accept this Catholic Nicene Creed must also acknowledge that they are in fact, rejecting a major part of this Creed by rejecting baptismal regeneration for the remission of sins. Trinitarian Christians must acknowledge the historical fact that the very creed which postulates the theory that there are three co-equal and co-eternal divine persons within the Deity also contains a harsh curse against all who reject the Catholic view that all must be baptized into the trinity in order to be born again. Oneness believers agree with this Catholic Council that it is necessary to be baptized in order to be saved. But Oneness Believers reject Trinitarian Baptism because it robs the believer from receiving the efficacy of the Name of Jesus Christ in water baptism. Water Baptism into the Name of Jesus Christ is clearly a Scriptural Command, not an option (See Acts 2:38; Romans 6:1-6; Colossians 3:17). The Encyclopedia Brittannica, 11th edition, volume 3, pages 365-366: "In the third century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid." Note that Bishop Stephen was not called "a Pope" until the fourth century. This title was not used by the Bishops of Rome until the time of Emperor Galarius. "A Treatise on Baptism" believed to be written by a third century Bishop name Ursinus: "Heretics who are already baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Holy Spirit." This document affirms that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is the correct mode of baptism. This treatise exhorts Christians who had held other heretical views, not to be rebaptized if they had already been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (even though the Church which baptized them had other false doctrinal views). The fourth or fifth century document "The Constitution of the Holy Apostles"(Not written by the Apostles) - page 503 - condemned those who perform only "one immersion, which is given into the death of Christ" and requires all baptisms to be performed in the Trinitarian formula of three immersions. Why did the Catholic Church condemn water baptism by one immersion into the death of Christ if people were not continuing to do so in defiance of the State Church? The Roman Bishop Pelagius of the sixth century - 556-561 recorded: "There are many who assert they are baptized in the name of Christ alone with only one immersion. But the evangelical precept which the very God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, handed down warns us to give each one holy baptism in the name of the Trinity and with a triple immersion also..." Pope Gregory I wrote on June 22, 601 A.D.: "Those heretics, however, who are not baptized in the name of the Trinity....these, when they come to the holy Church, are baptized, because what they received while in their error, not being in the name of the Holy Trinity, was not baptism." If these alleged heretics were not baptized in the alleged name of the Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - they must have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Thomas Edwards of England in 1646 taught that it was heresy to use the words Father, son, and Holy Ghost in baptism as it was a man-made tradition and that true Christian Baptism is "only in the name of Jesus Christ." The eighteenth century Baptist Historian, Robert Robinson (1735-1790) wrote a book entitled, "Ecclesiastical Researches and The History of Baptism. Under the subtitle, Apostolical Baptism, Robinson made the following observations:: "It is observable, there is no mention of baptism in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Peter exhorted the Jews of Jerusalem to repent and be baptized every one of them in the name of Jesus Christ. Philip baptized the Samaritans in the name of the Lord Jesus. Peter commanded the believers at Caesarea to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Many Christians taking it for granted, that the apostles thoroughly understood the words of the Lord Jesus (Mat. 28:19) ... administer baptism in the name of Christ, and think themselves justified by the book of the Acts of the Apostles." Robinson goes on to write: "All the classes, who did not hold the doctrine of a trinity of persons of God, whether called Artemonites, Paulianists, Arians, Monarchians, Patropassians, Sabellians, or by any other name, administered baptism in the name of Christ..." "...others deemed heretics by the Catholics were literally Anabaptists in regard to the Catholics. Themselves were baptized once by dipping in the name of Christ: but when Catholics, who had been dipped in the name of the trinity, joined their churches, they rebaptized them. The Catholics resented this, and considered it, as it really was, a tacit denial of the whole of their religion." "They all held (Anabaptist Groups), that the catholic corporation was not a church of Christ, and they therefore rebaptized such as had been baptized in that community, before they admitted them into their own societies. For this reason they were called in general Anabaptists." "...they baptized converts from pagans and jews, they rebaptized all catholics; and they baptized none without a personal confession of faith. They called themselves Christians; they censured the fraud and folly of those, who imposed on the world by calling themselves Catholics, and who ought rather to call themselves Cyprianites, being the apostate followers of that pretended saint; they quoted abundance of scripture to prove that a new testament church consisted of only virtuous persons, born of water and the Spirit; they separated from the Catholics on account of the impurity of their church; they despised councils, and expressed their astonishment, that Christians should approve of such superficial writings as those of Cyprian, and others called fathers; and they took the new testament for the rule of a Christian's faith and practice." I also find it astonishing that the majority of twenty first century believers claiming to reject Catholicism are in all actuality continuing in some of the same apostate practices of their Mother. The false doctrine of the trinity both robs the believer of the efficacy of the Name of Jesus Christ in water baptism and perverts the full Deity of Christ. We must acknowledge that The False Doctrine of the Trinity was developed by the Councils of the Roman Catholic Institution and not by the Apostles of Christ. Oneness Believers are also condemned because they also reject the Apostate Form of Pseudo Christian Baptism developed by the Catholics and insist on rebaptizing all who had been misled into being baptized into the Trinitarian Formula. The Catholic Church use to baptize by full body immersion three times, one for each alleged person of the Deity. Perhaps most Evangelicals and Trinitarian Pentecostals would not require rebaptism if the Catholic Church was today baptizing by full body immersion into the alleged Trinity of Persons. True Christian Believers must reject the corrupt teachings of the harlot church and be baptized into Jesus Christ. It is obvious that the Mother of Harlots has produces Protestant Daughters who have followed her form of False Christianity. When Christians reject the Name of Christ they are an offence to the bridegroom. The True New Testament Church is called "the Bride of Christ." What kind of bride would reject her husbands name? Will not such a bride be rejected by Christ when He returns? Will He not say, "I never knew you. Depart from Me. For you bear not My Name." The historical evidence proving that the Jesus Name mode of baptism continued throughout the centuries of The Church is overwhelming. If rebaptism into the name of Jesus Christ was not a continuing problem for the Catholic Church, why did the Catholic Councils so viciously condemn Jesus Name Baptism through the centuries? The following Councils condemned the Jesus Only form of Baptism: The Council of Constantinople in 382 A.D. specifically condemns Sabellian (Oneness) baptism into Jesus Christ. This Catholic Council mentions that the Sabellian form of baptism was prevalent in Galatia in A.D. 382. The Justinian Code of 529 A.D. declared the death penalty for both anti-Trinitarian baptism and rebaptism. The Council of Constantinople of 553 A.D. again condemned Sabellian (Oneness) baptism for: "retaining single immersion under a single name." The devil hates Jesus Name Baptism. This is why the harlot church continued to persecute the True Church of Christ. And this is why the Jesus Name Movement of the twenty first century continues to be persecuted today. True Christians must come out from the whole catholic institution. The Catholic Church has been the greatest channel of deception that has deceived whole nations and peoples. God's Word says, "Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins (Rev. 18:4). . ." "And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me saying, Come here; I will show unto you the judgement of the great whore that sits upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. . . And upon her forehead was written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. . . And here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits. It is a well documented historical fact that the ancient city of Rome was known as "The City of Seven Hills"

Read more »

Swala La Talaka Na Kuoa Tena

Swala La Talaka Na Kuoa Tena

Jambo la talaka na kuoa tena baada ya talaka hujadiliwa sana miongoni mwa Wakristo wa kweli. Yapo maswali mawili ambayo ndiyo msingi wa mjadala huo. (1) Ni wakati gani – kama upo – ambapo talaka inaruhusiwa machoni pa Mungu? Na (2) Ni wakati gani – kama upo – ambapo kuoa tena kunaruhusiwa machoni pa Mungu? Madhehebu mengi na makanisa binafsi yana msimamo rasmi kimafundisho kuhusu kinachoruhusiwa na kisichoruhusiwa, kutokana na tafsiri yao ya Maandiko. Tunapaswa kuwaheshimu wote kw akuwa na misimamo na kuishi kulingana nayo – ikiwa misimamo hiyo inasukumwa na kumpenda Mungu kwao. Hakika ingekuwa vizuri kama sisi wote tungekuwa na misimamo ambayo inaungwa mkono na Maandiko mia kwa mia. Mchungaji anayefanya wengine kuwa wanafunzi hataki kufundisha kitu kinachopungua kwenye kusudi la Mungu. Wala hataki kuweka mizigo juu ya watu, ambayo Mungu hakukusudia wao waibebe. Basi, hayo yakiwa hivyo, hebu nijitahidi kufasiri Maandiko yanayohusiana na mada hii tata, na kukuacha wewe uamue kama unakubaliana na tafsiri hiyo au hapana.

Nianze kwa kusema kwamba mimi – kama wewe – nahuzunishwa sana na ukweli kwamba talaka imezidi sana duniani siku hizi. Kibaya zaidi ni kwamba kuna Wakristo wengi wanaoachana na wenzao, hata walio katika huduma. Hili ni janga kubwa sana. Tunahitaji kufanya kila kinachowezekana ili kuzuia hayo kuongezeka, na ufumbuzi mzuri zaidi wa tatizo la talaka ni kuhubiri Injili na kuwaita watu kutubu. Wakati watu wawili wenye ndoa wanapokuwa wamezaliwa tena kweli kweli na wote wanamfuata Kristo, hawataachana. Mtumishi anayefanya wengine kuwa wanafunzi atafanya kila anachoweza kuimarisha ndoa yake, akijua kwamba mfano wa maisha yake ndiyo mwalimu mkuu.

Niseme pia kwamba mimi nina ndoa yenye furaha sana ya miaka zaidi ya ishirini na tano, na sijawahi kuoa kabla ya ndoa hii. Siwezi kufikiri kwamba tutakuja kuachana. Kwa hiyo, sina kusudi lolote la kurahisisha maandiko magumu yanayohusu kuachana kwa faida yangu mwenyewe. Ila, ninawahurumia sana watu walioachana, nikijua kwamba hata mimi nilipokuwa kijana ningeweza kufanya uamuzi mbaya kirahisi tu, na kuingia kwenye ndoa na mtu ambaye baadaye ningejaribiwa sana kumwacha, au mtu ambaye asingeweza kuchukuliana nami kama huyu niliye na ndoa naye. Yaani, ningeishia kwenye talaka, lakini haijawa hivyo kwa sababu ya neema ya Mungu. Nadhani watu wengi wenye ndoa wanaelewa ninachosema. Basi, tunahitaji kujizuia tusitupe mawe kwa watu walioachana. Kwani sisi ni nani, wenye ndoa zisizo na matatizo sana, kuwahukumu walioachana, bila ya kujua wamepitia nini? Mungu anaweza kuwahesabu kuwa wenye haki kuliko sisi, maana anajua kwamba sisi, kama tungekuwa katika hali kama hizo, pengine tungevunja ndoa mapema zaidi.

Hakuna anayeoa akitazamia kuvunja ndoa, na sidhani kama kuna wanaochukia kuachana kama waliokwisha achana. Kwa hiyo, tujaribu kuwasaidia watu wenye ndoa kuendelea kuwa katika ndoa, na tuwasaidie walioachana kupata neema yoyote ile ambayo Mungu anaitoa kwa watu kama wao. Ninaandika ninayoandika kwa misingi hiyo.

Nitajitahidi sana kuruhusu maandiko yafafanue mengine. Nimeona kwamba mistari inayohusu mada hii mara nyingi hutafsiriwa kwa njia kwamba inapingana na Maandiko mengine, ambayo ni ishara kwamba haijaeleweka vizuri kwa sehemu.

Msingi

Hebu tuanze kwa kweli ya msingi ambayo sote tutakubaliana nayo. Ni hivi: Maandiko yanasema wazi kwamba Mungu hapendi kuachana kwa ujumla. Katika kipindi ambapo wanaume fulani wa KiIsraeli walikuwa wanatalakiana na wake zao, alitamka hivi kupitia nabii wake aitwaye Malaki:

Maana mimi nakuchukia kuachana … naye aifunikizaye nguo yake kwa udhalimu namchukia … Basi jihadharini roho zenu, msije mkatenda kwa hiana (Malaki 2:16).

Hilo si jambo la kushangaza kwa mtu yeyote ajuaye tabia ya Mungu ya upendo na haki, au mtu anayejua jinsi kuachana kunavyoharibu waume, wake na watoto. Mtu anayekubaliana na talaka kwa ujumla tungehoji tabia yake. Mungu ni upendo (ona 1Yohana 4:8), na kwa sababu hiyo anachukia talaka.

Kuna wakati fulani ambapo baadhi ya Mafarisayo walimwuliza Yesu swali kuhusu uhalali wa talaka “kwa sababu yoyote” (TLR). Jibu lake linaonyesha jinsi asivyokubali talaka. Tena, talaka halikuwa kusudi Lake kwa yeyote yule.

Basi Mafarisayo wakamwendea wakamjaribu wakimwambia, ‘Je! Ni halali mtu kumwacha mkewe kwa kila sababu?’ Akajibu akawaambia, ‘Hamkusoma ya kwamba yeye aliyewaumba mwanzo, aliwaumba mtu mume na mtu mke, akasema, Kwa sababu hiyo mtu atamwacha babaye na mamaye, ataambatana na mkewe, na hao wawili watakuwa mwili mmoja? Hata wamekuwa si wawili tena, bali mwili mmoja. Basi aliowaunganisha Mungu, mwanadamu asiwatenganishe’ (Mathayo 19:3-6).

Tunajua kihistoria kwamba yalikuwepo makundi mawili yaliyokuwa na mitazamo tofauti katika vongozi wa kidini wa Kiyahudi wakati wa Yesu. Tutatazama mitazamo ya makundi hayo mawili kwa upana zaidi baadaye, lakini kwa sasa inatosha tu kusema kwamba kundi moja lilikuwa na msimamo mkali na lingine msimamo mwepesi. Wenye msimamo mkali waliamini kwamba mwanamume aliruhusiwa kumwacha mkewe kwa sababu nzito sana kiadili. Wale wenye msimamo mwepesi waliamini kwamba mwanamume aliruhusiwa kumwacha mkewe kwa sababu yoyote ile, hata kama amempata mwanamke mrembo zaidi. Mitazamo hiyo miwili tofauti ndiyo ilisababisha swali la Mafarisayo kwa Yesu.

Yesu akarejea kwenye mistari ya Maandiko kutoka kurasa za kwanza kabisa za kitabu cha Mwanzo, yenye kuonyesha jinsi ambavyo mpango wa kwanza wa Mungu ulikuwa kuwaunganisha wanaume na wanawake pamoja daima, si kwa muda tu. Musa alisema kwamba Mungu aliumba jinsia hizo mbili akilenga ndoa, na kwamba ndoa ni uhusiano wa maana sana kiasi cha kwamba ndiyo wa msingi – au, ndiyo wa kwanza kabisa. Ukiisha undwa, ni wa hali ya juu kuliko mahusiano ya mtu na wazazi wake. Wanaume wanaachana na wazazi wao ili kuambatana na wake zao.

Tena, muungano wa kimwil katika tendo la ndoa baina ya mwanamume na mkewe huonyesha mpango wa Mungu kwao kwamba wawe mwili mmoja. Ni dhahiri kwamba uhusiano wa aina hiyo – ambao unasababisha kuzaa – haukukusudiwa na Mungu uwe wa muda, bali wa kudumu. Jinsi Yesu alivyojibu swali la Mafarisayo lilionyesha kuvunjwa moyo Kwake kwamba wamediriki kuuliza hata swali la aina hiyo. Hakika Mungu hakukusudia kwamba wanaume waachane na wake zao “kwa sababu yoyote.”

Mungu hakukusudia kwamba yeyote atende dhambi kwa namna yoyote ile, lakini wote tumefanya dhambi. Kwa rehema zake, Mungua liweka mpango wakutuokoa kutokana na utumwa wetu wa dhambi. Tena, ana mambo ya kutuambia baada ya kufanya yale ambayo hakutaka tuyafanye. Vivyo hivyo, Mungu hakukusudia mtu yeyote aachane na mwenzake, lakini talaka ikawa haiepukiki kwa watu wasiojitoa kwa Mungu. Mungu hakushangazwa na talaka ya kwanza, wala zile zilizofuata kwa mamilioni. Basi, hasemi tu kwamba anachukia kuachana, lakini pia ana mambo ya kuwaambia watu baada ya kuachana.

Hapo Mwanzo

Baada ya kuweka msingi, tunaweza sasa kuendelea kuchunguza zaidi mambo ambayo Mungu amesema kuhusu talaka na kuoa tena. Kwa kuwa maneno mengi yenye kuleta utata kuhusu talaka na kuoa tena ni yale ambayo Yesu aliwaambia Waisraeli, itatusiadia kwanza kuona Mungu alichosema miaka mia nyingi kabla, juu ya jambo hilo hilo kwa Waisraeli wa zamani. Tukikuta kwamba alichosema Mungu kwa njia ya Musa na alichosema Mungu kwa njia ya Yesu vinapingana, basi tujue kwamba sheria ya Mungu ilibadilika au kwamba sisi tumetafsiri isivyo kitu fulani kilichosemwa na Musa au na Yesu. Basi, tuanze kwa kutazama yale ambayo Mungu alifunua hapo mwanzo kuhusu talaka na kuoa tena baada ya talaka.

Tayari nimekwisha taja Maandiko ya Mwanzo 2 ambayo kulingana na Yesu, yana umuhimu kwa mada ya talaka. Hebu sasa tuyaone moja kwa moja kutoka Mwanzo kwenyewe.

Na ule ubavu alioutwaa katika Adamu BWANA Mungu akaufanya mwanamke, akamleta kwa Adamu. Adamu akasema, ‘Sasa huyu ni mfupa katika mifupa yangu, na nyama katika nyama yangu, basi ataitwa mwanamke, kwa maana ametwaliwa katika mwanamume. Kw ahiyo mwanamume atamwacha baba yake na mama yake naye ataambatana na mkewe, nao watakuwa mwili mmoja (mwanzo 2:22-24).

Basi huo ndiyo mwanzo wa ndoa. Mungu alimfanya mwanamke wa kwanza kutoka kwa mwanamume wa kwanza, na kwa ajili ya mwanamume wa kwanza, kisha Yeye Mwenyewe binafsi akamleta kwa Adamu. Yesu anaeleza hilo hivi, “Mungu … aliwaunganisha [pamoja]” (Mathayo 19:6, maneno mepesi kutilia mkazo). Hii ndoa ya kwanza iliyopangwa na Mungu ikatoa mfano kwa ajili ya ndoa zingine zote zilizofuata. Mungu huumba wanawake wa kutosha wanaume, Naye huwaumba ili kila mmoja avutiwe na mwenzake. Tunaweza kusema kwamba Mungu bado anapanga ndoa za watu kwa hali ya juu sana (japo siku hizi kuna wanaoweza kuwa wenzi wengi zaidi kwa kila mtu kuliko ilivyokuwa kwa Adamu na Hawa). Basi, kama Yesu alivyosema, mwanadamu yeyote asitenganishe wale ambao Mungu amewaunganisha. Halikuwa kusudi la Mungu kwamba wale wana ndoa wa kwanza waishi maisha binafsi kila mmoja, bali kwamba wapate baraka katika kuishi pamoja kwa hali ya kutegemeana. Kuhalifu mapenzi ya Mungu yaliyo dhahiri ni dhambi. Basi, kutoka katika sura ya pili ya Biblia, ukweli ni kwamba talaka haikuwa kusudi la Mungu kwa ndoa yoyote ile.

Sheria Za Mungu Kuandikwa Mioyoni

Pia niseme kwamba hata wale ambao hawajawahi kusoma sura ya pili ya Mwanzo wanajua ndani yao kwamba talaka ni kosa, kwa sababu agano la ndoa za maisha ni kawaida katika tamaduni nyingi tu za kipagani, ambapo hakuna maarifa yoyote ya Biblia. Kama alivyoandika Paulo katika barua yake kwa Warumi:

Kwa maana watu wa Mataifa wasio na sheria wafanyapo kwa tabia zao yaliyo ndani ya torati, hao wasio na sheria wamekuwa sheria kwa nafsi zao wenyewe. Hao wakionyesha kazi ya torati iliyoandikwa mioyoni mwao, dhamiri yao ikiwashuhudia, na mawazo yao yenyewe kwa yenyewe, yakiwashtaki au kuwatetea (Warumi 2:14-15).

Taratibu za Mungu za maadili zimeandikwa katika moyo wa kila mwanadamu. Ukweli ni kwamba kanuni hiyo ya maadili inayozungumza kupitia dhamiri ndiyo sheria pekee ambayo Mungu aliwahi kumpa yeyote, isipokuwa Waisraeli, tangu Adamu mpaka wakati wa Yesu. Yeyote anayefikiri talaka atagundua kwamba kuna dhamiri ya kushughulika nayo. Na njia ya pekee ya kuishinda dhamiri yake ni kutafuta haki nzuri kwa ajili ya talaka. Akiendelea na talaka bila ya haki nzuri, dhamiri yake itamshtaki, hata kama atajaribu kuigandamiza.

Kwa kadiri tunavyofahamu, tangu Adamu mpaka wakati wa kutolewa Torati ya Musa kwa Waisraeli mwaka wa 1440 KK, sheria ya dhamiri ndiyo ufunuo pekee ambao Mungu alitoa kwa yeyote kwa vizazi 27 hivi – hata kwa Waisraeli – kuhusiana na talaka na kuoa tena. Na Mungu alihesabu kwamba hiyo inatosha. (Kumbuka tu kwamba Musa hakuandika habari za uumbaji katika Mwanzo 2 mpaka wakati wa Kutoka Misri.) Basi, ni halali kabisa kufikiri kwamba katika kipindi cha vizazi hivyo 27 kabla ya Torati ya Musa – ambapo ni pamoja na kipindi cha gharika ya Nuhu – kiasi fulani cha ndoa katika zile milioni nyingi za miaka mia nyingi zilimalizika kwa kuachana. Pia inaonekana ni sawa kusema kwamba, Mungu asiyebadilika, alikuwa tayari kuwasamehe wale waliopatikana na hatia ya talaka kama walitubu na kuacha dhambi yao. Tuna hakika kwamba watu walikuwa wanaokoka au kutangazwa kuwa wenye haki na Mungu kabla ya Torati ya Musa kutolewa, kama ilivyokuwa kwa Ibrahimu kwa imani yake (ona Warumi 4:1-12). Kama watu waliweza kutangazwa kuwa wenye haki kwa njia ya imani yao – tokea Adamu hadi kwa Musa – maana yake ni kwamba wangeweza kusamehewa chochote, pamoja na dhambi ya talaka. Basi, tunapoanza kuchunguza swala la talaka na kuoa tena baada ya talaka, kuna swali hapa: Je, watu waliopatikana na dhambi katika talaka zao kabla ya Torati ya Musa, waliosamehewa na Mungu, waliweza kuhukumiwa na dhamiri zao na kupata hatia kama wangeoa tena? (Maana haikuwepo sheria iliyoandikwa.) Ni swali la kufikiri.

Vipi kuhusu wahanga wa talaka ambao hawakuwa na dhambi – yaani, walioachwa kwa kosa lisilokuwa lao, bali kwa sababu ya wenzi wenye ubinafsi? Je, dhamiri zao zingewazuia kuoa tena? Nadhani si hivyo. Kama mwanamume alimwacha mke wake kwa sababu ya mwanamke mwingine, nini kingemwongoza huyo mwanamke aliyeachwa kufikia uamuzi kwamba hana haki ya kuolewa tena? Maana, aliachwa, lakini si kosa lake.

Torati Ya Musa

Hatusomi habari za talaka na kuoa tena baada ya talaka mpaka tunapofikia kitabu cha tatu cha Biblia. Katika Torati ya Musa kulikuwa na agizo la kuwakataza makuhani kuona wanawake walioachwa.

Wasimwoe mwanamke aliye kahab, au huyo aliye mwenye unajisi; wala wasimwoe mwanamke aliyeachwa na mumewe; kwa kuwa yeye kuhani ni mtakatifu kwa Mungu wake (Walawi 21:7).

Hakuna popote katika Torati ya Musa penye katazo la namna hiyo kwa wanaume wengine wa Israeli kwa ujumla. Tena, andiko hilo linabeba yafuatayo: (1) Walikuwepo wanawake waliokuwa wameachika katika Israeli, na (2) Kusingekuwepo kosa lolote kwa wanaume Waisraeli ambao si makuhani kuoa wanawake waliokuwa wameachika. Sheria inayotajwa katika mstari huo inawahusu makuhani tu na wanawake walioachika, wanaotaka kuolewa na makuhani. Hapakuwa na ubaya wowote katika Torati ya Musa kwa mwanamke yeyote aliyeachika kuolewa tena, mradi tu hakuolewa na kuhani. Na hakukuwa na kosa lolote kwa mwanamume, kuoa mwanamke aliyeachika, mradi si kuhani.

Kuhani mkuu (pengine kwa sababu ni mfano wa Kristo) alitakiwa kuishi kwa viwango vya juu zaidi kuliko hata makuhani wa kawaida. Yeye hakuruhusiwa hata kuoa mjane. Mistari kadhaa baadaye tunasoma hivi katika Walawi:

Asitwae mjane, wala mwanamke aliyeachwa na mumewe, wala mwanamke mwenye unajisi, wala kahaba; lakini atamwoa mwanamwali katika watu wake mwenyewe (Walawi 21:14).

Je, andiko hili linathibitisha kwamba ilikuwa dhambi kwa wajane wote wa Israeli kuolewa tena, au kwamba ilikuwa dhambi kwa wanaume wote wa Israeli kuoa wajane? Hapana! Mstari huu unasema – tena kwa nguvu sana – kwamba isingekuwa dhambi kwa mjane yeyote kuolewa na mwanamume yeyote, mradi si kuhani mkuu. Tena unasema mwanamume mwingine yeyote alikuwa huru kuoa mjane, mradi si kuhani mkuu. Maandiko mengine yanathibitisha uhalali wa wajane kuolewa tena (ona Warumi 7:2-3; 1Timo. 5:14).

Mstari huo vile vile unaonyesha kwamba kusingekuwa na kosa lolote kwa mwanamume yeyote Mwisraeli kuoa mwanamke aliyeachika, au hata mwanamke ambaye hakuwa bikira – “aliyenajisika katika ukahaba” – mradi si kuhani au kuhani mkuu. Hoja hiyo inaungwa mkono na Walawi 21:7 pia. Tena, unasema kwamba katika Torati ya Musa, hapakuwa na kosa lolote kwa mwanamke aliyeachika kuolewa tena, au mwanamke “aliyenajisika katika ukahaba” kuolewa, mradi tu asiolewe na kuhani. Kwa neema sana, Mungu aliwapa wazinzi na walioachika nafasi nyingine, japo alikuwa kinyume kabisa na uzinzi na talaka.

Katazo La Pili Lililo Dhahiri Kinyume Cha Kuoa Tena

Je, Mungu alitoa “nafasi nyingine” ngapi kwa wanawake walioachika? Je, tuamue kwamba Mungu aliwapa wanawake walioachika nafasi moja zaidi katika Torati ya Musa, akiwaruhusu kuolewa tena mara moja tu? Huo ni uamuzi usio sahihi. Tunasoma hivi baadaye katika Torati ya Musa,

Mtu akiisha kutwaa mke kwa kumwoa, asipopata kibali machoni mwake kwa kuwa ameona neno ovu kwake, na amwandikie hati ya kumwacha, akamtilie mkononi mwake na kumtoa katika nyumba yake. Naye akiisha kuondoka katika nyumba yake, ana ruhusa kwenda akawa mke wa mtu mwingine. Na huyo mumewe wa sasa akimchukia, na kumwandikia hati ya kumwacha na kumpa mkononi mwake na kumtoa katika nyumba yake; au akifa yeye mumewe wa sasa aliyemtwaa kuwa mkewe; yule wa kwanza aliyemwacha asimtwae kuwa mkewe tena, akiisha kutiwa unajisi; kwa kuwa haya ni machukizo mbele za BWANA; kwa hiyo usiitie dhambini nchi, akupayo BWANA Mungu wako, iwe urithi (Kumbu. 24:1-4).

Ona kwamba katika mistari hii, kitu kinachokatazwa peke yake ni yule mwanamke aliyeachika mara mbili (au aliyeachika mara moja na kuwa mjane mara moja) kuolewa tena na mumewe wa kwanza. Hakuna kinachosemwa kwamba ana hatia kwa sababu ameolewa mara ya pili. Na baada ya kuachika mara ya pili (au kuwa mjane kwa mume wake w apili), alichokatazwa tu ni kumrudia mumewe wa kwanza. Ni kwamba, angekuwa huru kuolewa na mwanamume mwingine yeyote (ambaye yuko tayari kujaribu bahati yake!). Ingekuwa ni dhambi kwake kuolewa na mtu mwingine yeyote, kusingekuwepo haja kwa Mungu kutoa maagizo hayo ambayo ni wazi kabisa. Kitu cha pekee ambacho Mungu angesema ni hiki: “Watu walioachika hawaruhusiwi kuoa au kuolewa tena.”

Tena – Kama Mungu alimruhusu mwanamke aina hii kuolewa mara ya pili, basi yule mwanamume aliyemwoa baada ya kuachika mara ya kwanza asingekuwa na hatia yoyote. Na kama aliruhusiwa kuolewa mara ya tatu, basi mwanamume yeyote ambaye angemwoa baada ya kuachika mara mbili asingekuwa na dhambi (isipokuwa kama alikuwa ndiye mumewe wa kwanza). Basi – Mungu anayechukia talaka anawapenda watu walioachika, na kwa rehema aliwapa nafasi nyingine.

Hitimisho

Hebu kwa muhtasari tuone yale ambayo tumejifunza mpaka hapa. Hata ingawa Mungu alitangaza kwamba anachukia t alaka, hakuonyesha kabla au wakati wa agano la kale kwamba kuoa na kuolewa tena ni dhambi, isipokuwa katika haya mawili yafuatayo: (1) mwanamke aliyeachika mara mbili – au aliyeachika mara moja na kufiwa na mume wa pili – kuolewa na mumewe wa kwanza, na (2) mwanamke aliyeachika kuolewa na kuhani. Tena, Mungu hakuonyesha kwamba kumwoa aliyeachika ni dhambi kwa yeyote, isipokuwa makuhani.

Hayo yanaonekana kupingana na yale Yesu aliyosema juu ya watu walioachika wanao-oa tena, na wale wenye kuoa walioachika. Yesu alisema watu kama hao wanazini (ona Mathayo 5:32). Basi, yaonekana tumemwelewa vibaya Yesu au Musa, au pengine Mungu alibadilisha sheria Yake. Mimi nadhani tunaweza kuwa tunatafsiri vibaya yale aliyofundisha Yesu, kwa sababu ni ajabu kwa Mungu kutangaza ghafula kitu kuwa dhambi kiadili, kilichokuwa kinakubalika kwa miaka elfu na mia tano katika Torati ambayo Yeye aliitoa kwa Israeli.

Kabla ya kukabiliana na hili kwa upana zaidi, hebu pia tuone kwamba ruhusa ya Mungu kwa watu kuoa tena katika agano la kale haikuwa na masharti yoyote yaliyotokanana sababu za talaka ya mtu, au kiwango cha hatia ambacho mtu alipata kwa sababu ya talaka husika. Mungu hakusema kwamba watu fulani walioachika hawaruhusiwi kuoa au kuolewa kwa sababu talaka yao haikuwa halali. Hakusema kwamba kuna watu fulani wanaoruhusiwa kuona kwa sababu ya uhalali wa talaka zao. Lakini mara nyingi wachungaji wa siku hizi wanajaribu kufanya maamuzi hivyo, kutokana na ushuhuda wa mtu mmoja. Kwa mfano: Mwanamke aliyeachika anajaribu kumshawishi mchungaji wake kwamba anastahili kuruhusiwa kuolewa kwa sababu yeye ni mwathirika wa talaka. Mume wake wa kwanza ndiye alimwacha – si yeye. Lakini, kama huyo mchungaji atapewa nafasi ya kusikiliza upande wa mume naye, anaweza kumhurumia kwa namna fulani. Pengine huyo mama alikuwa mkorofi na anastahili lawama kiasi fulani.

Mimi najua mume na mke ambao wote wawili walijitahidi kukorofishana ili mmoja atoe talaka, kusudi waepukane na hatia kwamba ndio walioanzisha talaka. Wote walitaka waweze kusema baada ya kuachana kwamba, ni yule mwingine ndiye aliyeanzisha, na kwa njia hiyo, kuhalalisha ndoa zao za pili. Twaweza kuwadanganya watu, lakini hatuwezi kumdanganya Mungu. Kwa mfano: Mungu anamwonaje mwanamke ambaye anamnyima mumewe huduma za kitandani kila wakati, kisha anamwacha kwa sababu amekosa uaminifu kwake? Je, hahusiki na hiyo talaka kwa sehemu?

Lile jambo la mwanamke aliyeachika mara mbili katika Kumbukumbu 24 halisemi chochote kwamba talaka zake zote mbili ni halali. Mume wake wa kwanza aliona “neno ovu” kwake. Kama hilo “neno ovu” ni uasherati, angestahili kufa kulingana na Torati ya Musa (Walawi 20:10). Basi, kama uasherati tu ndiyo sababu halali ya talaka, pengine mume wake wa kwanza hakuwa na sababu nzuri ya kumwacha. Kwa upande wa pili, pengine alikuwa amezini, naye, akiwa mtu mwenye haki kama Yusufu wa Mariamu, “aliazimu kumwacha kwa siri” (Mathayo 1:19). Hapo kuna mengi yanayowezekana.

Mume wa pili anasemekana “akimchukia”. Hapa tena, hatujui wa kulaumiwa ni nani, au hata kama wote wanastahili kulaumiwa. Lakini bado haiweki tofauti. Neema ya Mungu ilitolewa kwake kwamba aolewe na yeyote ambaye angekubali kujaribu bahati yake kwa mwanamke aliyeachika mara mbili, isipokuwa mume wake wa kwanza.

Pingamizi

Watu mara nyingi wamesema hivi: “Kama watu wataambiwa ni halali kwao kuoa tena baada ya kuachana kwa sababu yoyote, itawatia moyo wao kuachana kwa sababu zisizo halali.” Yawezekana ikawa kweli kiasi fulani kwa watu wa dini ambao hawajitahidi kumpendeza Mungu. Lakini, kujaribu kuwazuia watu ambao hawajajitoa kwa Mungu kabisa wasitende dhambi ni swala gumu. Ila, watu waliojitoa kwa Mungu kabisa hawatafuti njia za kutenda dhambi. Wanajaribu kumpendeza Mungu. Na watu aina hiyo kwa kawaida wana ndoa zenye nguvu. Tena, Mungu hakusumbuka sana kwamba watu katika agano la kale wataachana kwa sababu zisizo halali kwa sababu ya kuwapa sheria nyepesi ya kuoa au kuolewa tena, maana sheria aliyotoa kwa Israeli kuhusu jambo hilo ilikuwa nyepesi kabisa.

Je, tuepuke kuwaambia watu kwamba Mungu yuko tayari kuwasamehe dhambi yoyote, wasije wakatiwa moyo kutenda dhambi kwa sababu wanajua msamaha unapatikana? Kama ndivyo, itabidi tuache kuhubiri Injili. Kila kitu kinategemea hali ya moyo ya wanadamu. Wale wanaompenda Mungu wanataka kumtii. Ninajua vizuri sana kwamba msamaha wa dhambi unapatikana kwangu nikiomba, hata kama nitatenda dhambi gani. Lakini hiyo hainisukumi kufanya dhambi hata kidogo, kwa sababu nampenda Mungu na nimezaliwa mara ya pili. Nimebadilishwa kwa neema ya Mungu. Ninataka kumpendeza.

Mungu anajua hakuna haja ya kuongeza tokeo lingine baya kwenye matokeo mabaya mengi yasiyoepukika ya talaka, kwa matumaini ya kuwahamasisha watu wakae katika ndoa. Kuwaambia watu wenye ndoa zenye shida kwamba wasiachane kwa sababu hawataruhusiwa kuoa au kuolewa tena hakutoi hamasa kwa watu kuendelea katika ndoa. Hata kama atakuamini, uwezekano wa kuishi peke yake ukilinganisha na maisha ya mateso ya ndoa daima utasikika kama paradiso kwa mtu mwenye ndoa mbaya.

Asemavyo Paulo Kuhusu Kuoa Tena

Kabla ya kupambana na tatizo la kulinganisha maneno ya Yesu nay a Musa kuhusu kuoa tena, tunahitaji kutambua kwamba yupo mwandishi mwingine mmoja wa Biblia anayekubaliana na Musa, naye ni Paulo Mtume. Paulo aliandika waziwazi kabisa kwamba kuoa au kuolewa tena kwa walioachika si dhambi, na kukubaliana na kinachosemwa na Agano la Kale.

Kwa habari za wanawali sina amri ya Bwana, lakini natoa shauri langu, mimi niliyejaliwa kwa rehema za Bwana kuwa mwaminifu. Basi naona hili kuw ajema kwa ajili ya shida iliyopo, kwamba ni vema mtu akae kama alivyo. Je, umefungwa kwa mke? Usitake kufunguliwa. Umefunguliwa? Usitafute mke. Lakini kama ukioa, huna hatia; wala mwanamwali akiolewa, hana hatia. Lakini watu kama hao watakuwa na dhiki katika mwili nami nataka kuwazuilia hayo (1Wakor. 7:25-28. Maneno mepesi kutilia mkazo).

Bila shaka Paulo alikuwa anasema na watu walioachika katika fungu hili. Anawashauri walio na ndoa, wasio na ndoa na walioachika wabaki katika hali zao kwa sababu ya mateso ambayo Wakristo walikuwa wanapitia wakati huo. Ila, Paulo alisema wazi wazi kwamba watu walioachika na wanawali hawatatenda dhambi wakiingia katika ndoa.

Ona kwamba Paulo hafafanui uhalali wa kuoa au kuolewa tena kwa walioachika. Hakusema kwamba kuoa au kuolewa tena kunaruhusiwa kama walioachika hawana lawama yoyote katika talaka ya ndoa iliyopita. (Kwani, nani mwenye sifa za kutosha kuhukumu kitu kama hicho, zaidi ya Mungu?) Hakusema kwamba kuoa au kuolewa tena kunaruhusiwa tu kwa wale ambao waliachana kabla ya kuokoka. Hapana! Yeye alisema tu kwamba kuoa au kuolewa tena si dhambi, kwa walioachika.

Je, Paulo Alilegeza Masharti Kuhusu Talaka?

Je, ina maana Paulo alilegeza masharti kuhusu talaka kwa kuwa aliruhusu kanuni ya neema kwa habari ya kuoa na kuolewa tena? Hapana! Paulo alikuwa anapingana na talaka kwa ujumla. Katika mistari ya mwanzoni ya sura hiyo hiyo ya barua ya kwanza kwa Wakorintho, aliweka sheria kuhusu talaka ambayo inalingana na chuki ya Mungu kwa talaka.

Lakini wale waliokwisha kuoana nawaagiza; wala hapo si mimi ila Bwana; mke asiachane na mumewe. Lakini ikiwa ameachana naye, na akae asiolewe, au apatane na mumewe; tena mume asimwache mkewe. Lakini watu wengine nawaambia mimi, wala si Bwana, ya kwamba iwapo ndugu mmoja ana mke asiyeamini, na mke huyo anakubali kukaa naye, asimwache. Na mwanamke, ambaye ana mume asiyeamini, na mume huyo anakubali kukaa naye, asimwache mumewe. Kwa maana yule mume asiyeamini hutakaswa katika mkewe; na yule mke asiyeamini hutakaswa katika mumewe; kama isingekuwa hivyo, watoto wenu wangekuwa si safi, bali sasa ni watakatifu. Lakini, yule asiyeamini akiondoka, na aondoke. Hapo huyu ndugu mume au ndugu mke hafungiki. Lakini Mungu ametuita katika amani. Kwa maana wajuaje wewe mwanamke, kama utamwokoa mumeo? Au wajuaje wewe mwanamume, kama utamwokoa mkeo? Lakini kama Bwana alivyomgawia kila mtu, kama Mungualivyomwita kila mtu, na aenende vivyo hivyo. Ndivyo ninavyoagiza katika makanisa yote (1Wakor. 7:10-17).

Angalia kwamba Paulo anasema na waamini kwanza, ambao wana ndoa na waamini wenzao. Hawapaswi kuachana, na Paulo anasema hayo si maagizo yake, bali ya Bwana. Bila shaka hayo yanakubaliana kabisa na kila kitu tulichotazama katika Biblia mpaka hapa.

Yanayofuata yanasisimua. Paulo alikuwa mkweli wa kutosha kutambua kwamba hata waamini wanaweza kuachana, japo kwa nadra. Hayo yakitokea, Paulo anasema kwamba yule aliyemwacha mwenzake akae bila ndoa au wapatane. (Japo ushauri wa Paulo unawalenga zaidi wake, kanuni hiyo bila shaka inawahusu hata waume.)

Hapa tena – alichoandika Paulo kisitushangaze. Anatangulia kuweka sheria ya Mungu kwanza kuhusu talaka, lakini ana akili ya kutosha kutambua kwamba kutii sheria ya Mungu si kitu kinachofanyika kila wakati. Hivyo, dhambi ya kuachana inapotokea kati ya waamini wawili, anatoa maagizo zaidi. Yule aliyemwacha mwenzake abaki bila kuoa au apatane na mwenzake. Hicho ndicho kinachofaa endapo waamini wawili wataachana. Muda wote watakaobaki hawana ndoa, kuna tumaini la wao kupatana, na hilo ndiyo bora. Kama mmoja wao akioa tena, hapo ndiyo mwisho wa matumaini na uwezekano wa kupatana. (Tena, kama wametenda dhambi isiyosameheka kwa kuachana, isingekuwepo sababu ya Paulo kuwaaambia wabaki bila ndoa au wapatane.)

Unaonaje? Paulo alikuwa na akili za kutosha kujua kwamba agizo lake la pili kwa waamini walioachana halitafuatwa? Bila shaka! Labda ndiyo sababu hakutoa ushauri zaidi kwa waamini walioachana kwa sababu alitazamia kwamba waamini wa kweli wangefuata agizo lake la kwanza la kutoachana, na kwamba katika mazingira adimu sana, agizo lake la pili lingehitajika. Kwa hakika, wafuasi wa kweli wa Kristo wangefanya kila kinachowezekana ili kuhifadhi ndoa yao, kama walikuwa na matatizo ya ndoa. Na kwa hakika, mwamini ambaye, baada ya juhudi zote za kuhifadhi ndoa angejisikia kwamba hana jinsi isipokuwa kuachana, kutokana na aibu yake binafsi na shauku ya kumheshimu Kristo asingefikiri kuwa na ndoa nyingine, na bado angetumainia mapatano. Inaonekana kwamba tatizo halisi katika kanisa la kisasa kuhusu talaka ni kwamba kuna waamini bandia wengi sana – watu ambao hawajawahi kumwamini Bwana Yesu kweli, na kujitoa kwake.

Ni dhahiri basi kutokana na yale Paulo anayoandika katika 1Wakorinto 7 kwamba, Mungu ana matazamio makubwa sana kwa waamini – watu waliojazwa na Roho Mtakatifu – kuliko aliyo nay kwa wasioamini. Kama tulivyosoma, Paulo aliandika kwamba waamini wasiwaache hata wenzao wasioamini mradi wako tayari kuishi nao. Hapo tena, agizo hili halitushangazi kwa sababu linakubaliana kabisa na kila kitu tulichosoma katika Manadiko kuhusu jambo hilo hadi sasa. Mungu anapinga talaka. Lakini Paulo anaendelea kusema kwamba, kama yule asiyeamini anataka talaka, mwamini aruhusu hiyo. Paulo anajua kwamba asiyeamini hajajitolea kwa Mungu, na hivyo hamtazamii asiyeamini kutenda kama anayeamini. Nyongeza ndogo hapo: Asiyeamini anapokubali kuishi na aaminiye, ni ushuhuda mzuri kwamba, pengine asiyeamini ana mwelekeo wa kupokea Injili, au yule anayeamini amerudi nyuma au ni Mkristo bandia.

Sasa, nani atakayesema kwamba mwamini aliyeachwa na asiyeamini hayuko huru kuoa tena? Paulo hasemi hivyo kamwe, kama alivyosema kwa habari ya waamini wawili walioachana. Itabidi kushangaa ni kwa nini Mungu apinge mwamini aliyeachwa na asiyeamini kuoa au kuolewa tena. Hilo lingetimiza kusudi gani? Lakini, ruhusa hiyo inaonekana inapingana na maelezo ya Yesu kuhusu kuoa tena, kwamba, “Yeyote amwoaye mwanamke aliyeachwa, azini” (Mathayo 5:32, TLR). Hapo tena, kuna mashaka kwamba pengine tumefasiri vibaya yale ambayo Yesu anasema.

Tatizo Lenyewe

Ni wazi kwamba Yesu, Musa na Paulo wanakubaliana kwamba kuachana au talaka ni dhihirisho la dhambi kwa mhusika mmoja au wote wawili. Wote wanapinga talaka kwa ujumla. Lakini tatizo letu ni hili: Tunaowanishaje yale ambayo Musa na Paulo wanasema kuhusu kuoa tena, na yanayosemwa na Yesu kuhusu jambo hilo hilo? Ni sawa tukitazamia kwamba yatalingana kwa sababu wote walivuviwa na Mungu kusema waliyosema.

Hebu tutazame kwa uhakika kwamba Yesu alisema nini, na tuwaone aliowaambia hayo. Katika Injili ya Mathayo, tunamwona Yesu mara mbili akisema jambo la talaka na kuoa tena – mara ya kwanza katika Hotuba ya Mlimani, na mara nyingine alipohojiwa na Mafarisayo fulani. Tuanze na mazungumzo ya Yesu na Mafarisayo hao.

Basi Mafarisayo wakamwendea wakamjaribu wakimwambia, ‘Je! Ni halali mtu kumwacha mkewe kwa kila sababu?’ Akajibu akawaambia, ‘Hamkusoma ya kwamba yeye aliyewaumba mwanzo, aliwaumba mtu mume na mtu mke akasema, Kwa sababu hiyo, mtu atamwacha babaye na mamaye, ataambatana na mkewe; na hao wawili watakuwa mwili mmoja? Hata wamekuwa si wawili tena, bali mwili mmoja. Basi aliowaunganisha Mungu, mwanadamu asiwatenganishe.’ Wakamwambia, ‘Jinsi gani basi Musa aliamuru kumpa hati ya talaka, na kumwacha?’ Akawaambia, ‘Musa, kwa sababu ya ugumu wa mioyo yenu, aliwapa ruhusa kuwaacha wake zenu; lakini tangu mwanzo haikuwa hivi. Nami nawaambia ninyi, Kila mtu atakayemwacha mkewe, isipokuwa ni kwa sababu ya uahserati, akaoa mwingine, azini; naye amwoaye yule aliyeachwa, azini’ (Mathayo 19:3-9).

Katika mazungumzo yao na Yesu, Mafarisayo walirejea Maandiko katika Torati ya Musa, ambayo tulikwisha yatazama mapema – Kumbukumbu la Torati 24:1-4. Hapo imeandikwa hivi: “Mtu akiisha kutwaa mke kwa kumwoa, asipopata kibali machoni mwake kwa kuwa ameona neno ovu kwake, na amwandikie hati ya kumwacha, akamtilie mkononi mwake, na kumtoa katika nyumba yake” (Kumbu. 24:1, Maneno mepesi kutilia mkazo).

Katika siku za Yesu yalikuwepo makundi mawili kimtazamo, kuhusu hicho kinachoitwa “neno ovu.” Miaka kama ishirini kabla ya swali hilo kuulizwa, mwalimu mmoja aliyeitwa Hileli alifundisha kwamba neno ovu lilikuwa ni tofauti isiyorekebika. Wakati huu ambapo Yesu anafanya majadiliano na Mafarisayo, tafsiri ya “Hileli” ilikuwa imepanuliwa sana na kuwa nyepesi mno, ikiruhusu talaka kwa “sababu yoyote” kama swali la Mafarisayo lilivyotoka. Mtu aliweza kumwacha mkewe kama ameunguza chakula, au chumvi ikizidi kwenye chakula, au kama alijizungusha sana mbele za watu magoti yake yakaonekana, au kama aliruhusunywele zake kuonekana, au kama alizungumza na mwanamume mwingine, au kama alisema maneno mabaya kuhusu mama mkwe wake, au kama alikuwa tasa. Mwanamume aliruhusiwa hata kumwacha mkewe kama angemwona mwingine ambaye ni mrembo zaidi – hivyo kuona “neno ovu” kwa mkewe.

Mwalimu mwingine maarufu aliitwa Shammai. Yeye aliishi kabla ya Hileli, na alifundisha kwamba “neno ovu” lilikuwa kitu kibaya sana, kama vile uzinzi. Bila shaka utatambua kwamba miongoni mwa Mafarisayo wa siku za Yesu, tafsiri ya Hileli ndiyo ilipendwa zaidi kuliko ya Shammai. Mafarisayo waliishi na kufundisha kwamba talaka ilikuwa halali kwa sababu yoyote. Basi, talaka iliongezeka sana. Na Mafarisayo – kama kawaida yao kiFarisayo – walikazia sana umuhimu wa kumpa mke hati ya talaka unapomwacha, ili usi”halifu Torati ya Musa.”

Usisahau Kwamba Yesu Alikuwa Anazungumza Na Mafarisayo

Baada ya kujua hayo, tutaelewa vizuri zaidi kilichokuwa kinamkabili Yesu. Mbele yake walisimama kundi la waalimu wa dini wanafiki, wengi ambao – kama si wote basi – walikuwa na talaka moja au zaidi, na pengine ni kwa sababu walikuwa wamepata wanawake warembo zaidi. (Si bahati kwamba maneno ya Yesu kuhusu talaka katika Mahubiri ya Mlimani yanafuata maonyo Yake makali sana kuhusu tamaa, na kusema ni aina ya uzinzi.) Na bado walikuwa wanajihesabia haki, wakidai kwamba wameishika Torati ya Musa.

Swali lao tu linadhihirisha jinsi walivyoegemea upande mmoja. Waliamini kabisa kwamba mtu angeweza kumwacha mke wake kwa sababu yoyote. Yesu akadhihirisha ufahamu wao mbovu wa kusudi la Mungu kuhusu ndoa kwa kurejea maneno ya Musa juu ya ndoa katika Mwanzo sura ya 2. Mungu hakukusudia kuwepo na talaka zozote, achilia mbali talaka “kwa sababu yoyote,” lakini viongozi wa Israeli walikuwa wanawaacha wake zao kiholela tu!

Inaonekana Mafarisayo walijua tayari msimamo wa Yesu kuhusu talaka, maana alikwisha kuutamka hadharani. Basi wakawa na pingamizi tayari: “Mbona basi Musa aliagiza apewe hati ya talaka na kumwacha?” (Mathayo 19:7, TLR).

Hapo tena swali lao linaonyesha jinsi walivyogemea upande mmoja. Limeulizwa kana kwamba Mus aalikuwa anawaagiza wanaume wawaache wake zao baada ya kugundua “neno ovu,” mradi tu watoe hati ya talaka. Lakini, kama tujuavyo kutokana na Kumbukumbu 24:1-4, Musa hakusema hivyo hata kidogo. Yeye alikuwa anaweka sawa ndoa ya tatu ya mwanamke – akimzuia asiolewe tena na mume wake wa kwanza.

Kwa vile Musa alitaja talaka, bila shaka talaka ilikuwa inaruhusiwa kwa sababu fulani. Lakini ona kwamba neno alilotumia Yesu katika jibu lake – aliruhusu – ni tofauti na chaguo la Mafarisayo – aliamuru. Musa aliruhusu talaka, hakuamuru. Na sababu ya Musa kuruhusu talaka ni ugumu wa mioyo ya Waisraeli. Yaani – Mungu aliruhusu talaka kama tendo la huruma tu kwa hali ya dhambi ya watu. Alijua watu wasingekuwa waaminifu kwa wana ndoa wenzao. Alijua uchafu ungekuwepo. Alijua mioyo ya watu ingevunjika. Basi, akatoa ruhusa kwa talaka. Hakuwa amekusudia hivyo tangu mwanzo, lakini dhambi ililazimisha hivyo.

Kisha Yesu akaweka sheria ya Mungu wazi kwa Mafarisayo, akifafanua kile ambacho Musa anakiita “neno ovu”. “Yeyote amwachaye mkewe, isipokuwa kwa sababu ya uasherati, akamwoa mwanamke mwingine, azini” (Mathayo 19:9, TLR. Maneno mepesi kutilia mkazo). Machoni pa Mungu, uzinzi ndiyo sababu halali pekee kwa mwanamume kumwacha mke wake. Na ni rahisi kueleweka. Ni kitu gani kingine amb acho mwanamume au mwanamke anaweza kufanya, kikawa kibaya kwa mwenzake kuliko hicho? Mtu anapozini, anatuma ujumbe mchungu sana. Kwa hakika Yesu hakuwa anazungumzia uzinzi tu aliposema hayo. Bila shaka hata kumbusu mwenzi wa mwingine na kumshika-shika ni kitu kibaya sana, kama ilivyo tabia ya kuangalia picha mbaya za ngono, au matendo mengine yasiyofaa ya mahusiano kimwili. Kumbuka kwamba Yesu alifananisha tamaa na uzinzi katika Mahubiri Yake ya Mlimani.

Tusije kusahau Yesu alikuwa anasema na nani – ni Mafarisayo waliokuwa wanaachana na wake zao kwa sababu yoyote na kuoa haraka haraka, lakini hao hao wasingezini kamwe ili wasivunje amri ya saba. Yesu aliwaambia wanajidanganya wenyewe. Walichokuwa wanafanya hakikuwa tofauti na uzinzi. Ndiyo ukweli huo. Yeyote aliye mkweli anaweza kuona kwamba mwanamume anayemwacha mkewe ili amwoe mwanamke mwingine anafanya kitu ambacho mzinzi hufanya. Tofauti ni kwamba, huyu mwingine anahalalisha uzinzi wake.

Ufumbuzi

Huu ndiyo ufunguo wa kulinganisha maneno ya Yesu na ya Musa na ya Paulo. Yesu alikuwa anadhihirisha unafiki wa Mafarisayo tu. Hakuwa anaweka sheria inayozuia kuoa au kuolewa tena. Kama alikuwa anafanya hivyo, basi alipingana na Musa na Paulo, na kusababisha vurugu kwa mamilioni ya watu walioachika, na mamilioni ya watu walioingia kwenye ndoa nyingine. Kama Yesu alikuwa anaweka sheria kuhusu kuoa au kuolewa tena, tuwaambie nini wale ambao wameachika na kuoa au kuolewa tena kabla ya kusikia habari za Sheria ya Yesu? Je, tuwaambie kwamba wanaishi katika mahusiano ya kiasherati? Na, kwa kuwa tunajua Biblia inaonya kwamba hakuna wazinzi au waasherati watakaorithi ufalme wa Mungu (1Wakor. 6:9-10), tuwashauri kwamba waachane na wenzao? Pengine ni sawa, lakini, Mungu si anachukia kuachana?

Je, tuwaambie waachane kitandani mpaka wana ndoa wenzao wa kwanza wafe ili kuwaepusha na zinaa ya kila wakati? Lakini, Paulo si anawakataza wana ndoa kunyimana? Tena, ushauri kama huo si utapelekea watu kujaribiwa kimwili na hata kuamsha hamu za kutaka wana ndoa wenzao wafe?

Je, tuwaambie watu kama hao waachane na wenzao wa sasa na kurudiana na wenzao wa kwanza (kama wengine wanavyosema) – kitu ambacho kinakatazwa na Torati ya Musa katika Kumbukumbu 24:1-4?

Halafu – vipi kuhusu watu walioachana ambao hawajaoa tena? Kama wanaruhusiwa kuoa au kuolewa tena ikiwa wenzao walioachana nao walitenda uzinzi, nani atakayejizatiti kuthibitisha kama kweli uzinzi ulifanyika? Je, itabidi wana ndoa fulani wathibitishe kwamba wenzao walioachana nao walikuwa na hatia ya tamaa tu ili waweze kurudiana? Je, wengine itabidi watafute mashahidi wa kuthibitisha uasherati wa wenzao ili waweze kurudiana?

Kama swali lililopita – vipi kuhusu swala la mwenzi kuzini kwa sababu alikuwa katika ndoa na mtu aliyemnyima tendo la ndoa? Je, ni halali kwa huyo aliyekuwa anamnyima mwenzake tendo la ndoa aruhusiwe kuolewa, na yule mtu aliyezini akatazwe kuoa au kuolewa?

Vipi kuhusu mtu aliyezini kabla ya ndoa? Je, uzinzi wake huo si kukosa uaminifu kwa mwenzi wa baadaye? Je, dhambi hiyo hailingani na uzinzi, kama yeye au mwenzake wangekuwa katika ndoa wakati walipofanya dhambi yao? Mbona huyo aruhusiwe kuoa au kuolewa?

Vipi kuhusu watu wawili wanaokaa pamoja – bila ndoa – halafu wanatengana. Mbona wanaruhusiw akuoa na kuolewa na wengine baada ya kutengana, kwa kuwa hawakuwa na ndoa rasmi? Wana tofauti gani na wale wenye kuachana kisha wakaoa na kuolewa tena?

Vipi kuhusu kweli kwamba “mambo ya zamani yanapita” na “mambo yanakuwa mapya” wakati mtu anapo-okoka (ona 2Wakor. 5:17)? Je, inamaanisha kila dhambi iliyowahi kufanywa isipokuwa dhambi ya kuachana isivyo halali?

Yote hayo na maswali mengine mengi[1] yanaweza kuulizwa, ambayo ni hoja zenye nguvu kabisa kuunga mkono wazo kwamba Yesu hakuwa anaweka sheria mpya kuhusu ndoa. Yesu alikuwa na akili za kutosha kutambua matokeo ya sheria Yake mpya ya ndoa kama ndivyo ilivyokuwa. Hilo tu linatosha kutuambia kwamba alikuwa anaweka wazi unafiki wa Mafarisayo – wanaume wenye tamaa, wanafiki, washika dini, waliokuwa wanaachana na wake zao “kwa sababu yoyote” na kuoa tena.

Sababu ya Yesu kusema kwamba walikuwa “wanazini” badala ya kusema tu kwamba walichokuwa wanafanya ni kosa ni kwa sababu alitaka wao waone kwamba talaka kwa sababu yoyote na kuoa tena baada ya hapo si tofauti na uzinzi, kitu ambacho wao walidai hawafanyi. Je, tuamue kwamba kitu pekee alichojali Yesu ni tendo la ndoa tu katika ndoa ya pili, na kwamba angeunga mkono ndoa ya pili mradi tu watu wasijihusishe katika tendo la ndoa? Hapana. Basi, tusimfanye aseme kitu ambacho hakumaanisha kusema.

Mlinganisho Unaofanya Kufikiri

Hebu tufikiri kuhusu watu wawili. Mmoja ana ndoa, ni mtu wa dini, anayedai kumpenda Mungu kwa moyo wake wote, ambaye ameanza kumtamani mwanamke kijana anayekaa jirani. Muda si muda anamwacha mkewe na haraka anamwoa yule msichana aliyemvutia.

Yule mwingine si mtu wa dini. Yeye hajawahi kusikia hata Injili, na anaishi maisha mabaya ambayo hatimaye yanaharibu ndoa yake. Miaka kadhaa baadaye, akiwa peke yake tu, anaisikia Injili, anatubu, na anaanza kumfuata Yesu kwa moyo wake wote. Miaka mitatubaadaye anampenda mwanamke mwenye kumpenda Mungu sana anayekutana naye kanisani. Wote wawili wanatafuta mapenzi ya Mungu na ushauri wa wengine kwa bidii, kisha wanapanga kuoana. Wanakuja kuonana, na wanakuwa waaminifu kwa Bwana na wao kwa wao mpaka kifo.

Sasa – hebu tudhanie kwamba wote wawili wametenda dhambi kwa kuoa tena. Katika hao wawili, ni yupi mwenye dhambi kubwa zaidi? Bila shaka ni yule wa kwanza. Yeye ni sawa na mzinzi tu.

Lakini – vipi kuhusu yule mtu wa pili? Je, ni kwamba ametenda dhambi? Je, tunaweza kusema kwamba yeye hana tofauti na mzinzi – kama yule wa kwanza? Hapana. Je, tumwambie yale ambayo Yesu alisema kuhusu watu wanaoachana na kuoa tena, na kumjulisha kwamba sasa anaishi na mwanamke ambaye Mungu hakumwunganisha naye kwa sababu anamhesabu bado ana ndoa na mke wake wa kwanza? Je, tumwambie kwamba anaishi katika zinaa?

Majibu yako dhahiri kabisa. Uzinzi hutendwa na watu ambao wameoana, wanaomwona mwingine asiyekuwa mwenzi wao. Kwa hiyo, kuachana na mwenzako kwa sababu umepata mrembo zaidi ni sawa na uzinzi. Lakini, mtu ambaye hajaoa hawezi kufanya uzinzi kwa sababu hana mwenzi wa kumkosea uaminifu, na mtu ambaye ameachika hawezi pia kutenda uzinzi kwa sababu hana mwenzi wa kumkosea uaminifu. Tukielewa mantiki ya kihistoria na kiBiblia kuhusu maneno ya Yesu, hatuwezi kufikia maamuzi yatakayopotosha watu, na yenye kupingana na Maandiko yote.

Wanafunzi waliposikia itikio la Yesu kwa jibu la Mafarisayo, walijibu hivi, “Kama mahusiano ya mwanamume na mke wake yako hivyo, ni afadhali kutokuoa” (Mathayo 19:10, TLR). Tambua kwamba walikuwa wamekulia chini ya mafundisho na ushawishi wa Mafarisayo, na katika utamaduni uliokuwa umeathiriwa sana na Mafarisayo. Hawakuwahi kudhani kwamba ndoa ni kitu cha kudumu kiasi hicho. Ukweli ni kwamba, muda mfupi uliopita, hata wao waliamini ni halali kwa mwanamume kumwacha mkewe kwa sababu yoyote. Basi kwa haraka wakaamua kwamba ingekuwa bora kuepukana na ndoa kabisa, ili kuepuka hatari ya kuachana na kuingia kwenye uzinzi. Yesu alijibu hivi:

Si wote wawezao kulipokea neno hili, ila wale waliojaliwa. Maana wako matowashi waliozaliwa hali hiyo toka matumboni mwa mama zao; tena wako matowashi waliofanywa na watu kuwa matowashi; tena wako matowashi waliojifanya kuwa matowashi kwa ajili ya ufalme wa mbinguni. Awezaye kulipokea neno hili, na alipokee (Mathayo 19:11-12).

Yaani – kinachoamua ni ile hamu ya kushirikiana kimwili aliyo nayo mtu, au uwezo wake wa kuitawala. Hata Paulo alisema hivi: “NI afadhali kuoa kuliko kuwaka tamaa” (1Wakor. 7:9, TLR). Wale waliozaliwa wakiwa matowashi au wale wanaofanywa matowashi na watu (kama ilivyokuwa zamani: watu waliwafanya wanaume wengine kuwa matowashi, ili wawape jukumu la kuwalinda wake zao) hawana hamu ya kushirikiana na mwanamke kimwili. Wale “wanaojifanya wenyewe kwa ajili ya ufalme wa mbinguni” ni wale ambao wamejaliwa na Mungu kipekee kuwa na uwezo wa kujitawala zaidi. Ndiyo maana “si wote wawezao kulipokea neno hili, ila wale waliojaliwa” (Mathayo 19:11).

Mahubiri Ya Mlimani

Tusisahau kwamba wale watu Yesu aliosema nao wakati akihubiri Mlimani pia walikuwa wameishi maisha yao chini ya ushawishi wa Mafarisayo wanafiki, waliokuwa viongozi na waalimu wa Israeli. Kama tulivyokwisha jifunza hapo mapema tulipotazama Mahubiri ya Mlimani, ni dhahiri kwamba sehemu kubwa ya yale ambayo Yesu alisema yalikuwa kama masahihisho tu ya mafundisho ya uongo ya Mafarisayo. Yesu hata aliwaambia watu kwamba hawataingia mbinguni ikiwa haki yao haitazidi ile ya waandishi na Mafarisayo (Mathayo 5:20), ambayo ilikuwa njia nyingine ya kusema kwamba waandishi na Mafarisayo walikuwa njiani kwenda jehanamu. Mwisho wa mahubiri yake, watu walishangazwa kwa sehemu kwa sababu Yesu alikuwa anafundisha kitofauti, “si kama waandishi wao” (Mathayo 7:29, TLR).

Mapema katika mahubiri Yake, Yesu aliweka wazi unafiki wa wale waliodai kwamba hawajawahi kuzini, ila wanatamani na kuachana na wenzi wao na kuoa tena. Akapanua maana ya uzinzi kwamba ni zaidi ya tendo la kimwili la dhambi baina ya watu wawili walio na ndoa. Na aliyosema yalikuwa wazi kabisa kwa yeyote mwenye akili nzuri na mkweli, ambaye angefikiri kidogo tu. Lakini kumbuka kwamba, mpaka wakati wa mahubiri ya Yesu, wengi wa watu katika lile kundi wangekuwa na mawazo kwamba ilikuwa halali kwao kuachana “kwa sababu yoyote” ile. Yesu alitaka wafuasi Wake pamoja na wengine wote wajue kwamba kusudi la Mungu tangu mwanzo lilikuwa kiwango cha juu zaidi.

Mmesikia kwamba imenenwa, ‘Usizini’. Lakini mimi nawaambia, Kila mtu atazamey mwanamke kwa kumtamani amekwisha kuzini naye moyoni mwake. Jicho lako la kuume likikukosesha, ling’oe ulitupe mbali nawe. Kwa maana yakufaa kiungo chako kimoja kipotee wala mwili wako mzima usitupwe katika jehanamu. Na mkono wako wa kuume ukikukosesha, ukate uutupe mbali nawe. Kwa maana yakufaa kiungo chako kimoja kipotee wala mwili wako mzima usitupwe katika jehanmum. Imenenwa pia, ‘Mtu akimwacha mkewe, na ampe hati ya talaka.’ Lakini mimi nawaambia, Kila mtu amwachaye mkewe, isipokuwa kwa habari ya usherati, amfanya kuwa mzinzi, na mtu akimwoa yule aliyeachwa, azini (Mathayo 5:27-32).

Kama tulivyokwisha ona mapema, ona kwamba maneno ya Yesu kuhusu talaka na kuoa tena yanafuata moja kwa moja maagizo aliyotoa kuhusu tamaa, hivyo kuyaunganisha pamoja. Tena, Yesu anasema vyote viwili ni uzinzi, na kuviunganisha zaidi. Basi tunaona kwamba kuna muunganiko wa kitu kinachofanana katika maelezo hayo ya fungu hili lote la Maandiko. Yesu alikuwa anawasaidia wafuasi Wake kuelewa maana ya kutii amri ya saba. Maana yake ni kutotamani, na kutoachana na kuoana tena.

Kila mtu katika wasikilizaji Wake wa Kiyahudi alikuwa amesikia amri ya saba ikisomwa katika sinagogi (maana hawakuwa na Biblia binafsi siku zile), pamoja na mafafanuzi yaliyotolewa, na kuona jinsi waalimu wao – waandishi na Mafarisayo – walivyoyafanyia kazi maishani mwao. Ndipo Yesu akasema, “lakini mimi nawaambia”, ila hakuwa anataka kuongeza sheria zingine mpya. Yeye alitaka kudhihirisha tu mpango wa Mungu tokea mwanzo.

Kwanza – tamaa ilikuwa inakatazwa kabisa na amri ya kumi, na hata bila amri ya kumi, yeyote aliyefikiri vizuri angetambua kwamba ilikuwa ni kosa kutamani kufanya kitu ambacho Mungu amekataza.

Pili – tangu mwanzoni kabisa mwa kitabu cha Mwanzo, Mungu aliweka wzi kwamba ndoa ilitaiwa kuwa makubaliano ya maisha yote. Tena, yeyote aliyefkiri vizuri juu ya hilo angetambua kwamba kuachana na kuoana tena ni sawa tu na uzinzi, hasa kama mmoja atapanga kumwacha menzake kwa kusudi la kuoa tena.

Lakini tena katika mahubiri haya, ni wazi kwamba Yesu alikuwa anawasaidia tu watu waone ukweli kuhusu tamaa na ukweli kuhusu kuachana kwa sababu yoyote, na kuoana tena. Yeye hakuwa anaweka sheria mpya ya kuoana tena ambayo haikuwa “vitabuni” hadi wakati huo.

Inashangaza kwamba ni watu wachache sana kanisani ambao wamewahi kutimiza maneno ya Yesu ya kung’oa jicho au kukata mikono, maana mawazo hayo yanapingana sana na Maandiko mengine, na ni dhahiri kwamba kazi yake ni kutia nguvu hoja kuhusu kuepukana na kujaribiwa kuwa na mahusiano kimwili yasiyofaa. Lakini wengi sana kanisani wanajaribu kutafsiri moja kwa moja maneno ya Yesu juu ya yule mwenye kuoa au kuolewa tena kufanya uzinzi, hata ingawa tafsiri hizo zinapingana moja kwa moja na Maandiko mengine. Lengo la yesu lilikuwa kuwafanya wasikilizaji Wake wakabiliane na ukweli, kwa tumaini kwamba talaka zingepungua baada ya hapo. Kama wafuasi Wake wangepkea moyoni yale aliyosema kuhusu tamaa, kusingekuwepo na uasherati au uchafu miongoni mwao. Kama usingekuwepo, kusingekuwepo na sababu halali za talaka. Basi, talaka isingekuwepo, kama Mungu alivyokusudia tangu mwanzo.

Mwanamume Anamfanyaje Mkewe Azini?

Ona maneno ya Yesu, kwamba, “Yeyote amwachaye mkewe, isipokuwa kwa sababu ya uasherati, amfanya kuwa mzinzi.” Hili tena linatufanya tuamini kwamba hakuwa anaweka sheria mpya ya kuoana tena, bali alikuwa anadhihirisha tu ukweli kuhusu dhambi ya mtu anayemwacha mkewe bila sababu nzuri. “Amfanya kuwa mzinzi.” Kuna wanaosema kwamba Yesu alikuwa anamzuia huyo mwanamke kuolewa tena, kwa sababu anasema huo ni uzinzi. Lakini si hivyo. Mkazo uko kwenye dhambi ya mwanamume anayemwacha mkewe, kwamba, kwa sababu ya kile anachokitenda, mke wake atakuwa hana lingine la kufanya isipokuwa kuolewa tena, ambayo si dhambi kwa upande wake maana yeye ameathirika kutokana na ubinafsi wa mumewe. Machoni pa Mungu ni kwamba, kwa kuwa mwanamume alimwacha mkewe na kumwingiza kwenye kuolewa tena, ni kama amemlazimisha aingie kitandani na mwanamume mwingine. Basi, yule anayedhani hajatenda uzinzi anakuwa na hatia kwa uzinzi mara mbili – wa kwake na wa mkewe.

Yesu hakusema kwamba Mungu anamhesabu mke aliyeathiriwa na talaka kwamba ana hatia ya uzinzi, maana hiyo isingekuwa halali, tena ingekuwa haina maana kabsia kama huyo mke aliyeathiriwa asingeolewa. Mungu angewezaje kusema kwamba ni mzinzi kama asingeolewa? Isingekuwa na maana kabisa. Basi, ni dhahiri kwamba Mungu anamhesabu huyo mwanamume kuwa na hatia kwa uzinzi wake mwenyewe na “uzinzi” wa mkewe, ambao kweli si uzinzi kwake maana ni ndoa ya pili ambayo ni halali kabisa.

Sasa – vipi kuhusu maneno ya Yesu yafuatayo kwamba, “na mtu akimwoa mwanamke aliyeachwa anazini”? Ni mawili tu yanayoweza kueleweka. Aidha Yesu alikuwa anaongeza hatia ya uzinzi wa tatu dhidi ya mtu anayedhani kwamba hajawahi kuzini (kwa sababu ile ile kama aliyotumia kuongeza hatia ya pili), au Yesu alikuwa anasema kuhusu huyo mwanamume anayemtia moyo mwanamke aachane na mumewe ili waoane, “asizini”. Kama Yesu alikuwa anasema kwamba mwanamume yeyote duniani anayemwoa mwanamke aliyeachwa anazini, basi kila mwanamume wa Israeli alizini katika kipindi cha miaka mia nyingi ambaye, katika kutimiza Torati ya Musa, alimwoa mwanamke aliyeachika. Ukweli ni kwamba kila mwanamume siku hiyo aliyekuwa anamsikiliza Yesu, aliyekuwa amemwoa mwanamke aliyeachika kwa kufuatana na Torati ya Musa, alikuwa na hatia ya kosa ambalo hakuwa na hatia yake muda mfupi kabla ya hapo, na Yesu akawa amebadilisha sheria ya Mungu hapo hapo. Tena, kila mtu katika wakati ujao ambaye alimwoa mtu aliyeachwa, kwa kuamini neno la Paulo katika barua yake kwa Wakorintho kwamba hilo si dhambi, alikuwa ametenda dhambi – ni mzinzi.

Jinsi Biblia ilivyo inapelekea mtu kumstahi sana mwanamume aliyeoa mwanamke aliyeachwa. Kama yeye ni mwathirika wa ubinafsi wa mume wake wa kwanza, asiye na hatia, ningemstahi sana mwanamume huyo, kama ambavyo ningemstahi sana mwanamume anayeoa mjane na kumtunza. Kama huyo mwanamke alikuwa na sababu ya kulaumiwa kwa talaka yake, bado ningemstahi sana kwa kuwa na moyo wa Kristo kwa kuamini kwamba kuna kilicho bora kwake, na kwa neema yake ya kukubali kusahau yaliyopita na kujaribu. Kwa nini mtu yeyote aliyesoma Biblia, mwenye Roho Mtakatifu ndani yake aamue kwamba Yesu alikuwa anamkataza kila mtu asioe au kuolewa na yeyote aliyeachika? Hilo linaingiaje kwenye ukweli kwamba Mungu ni mwenye haki – haki ambayo haimwadhibu yeyote kwa kuwa mwathirika – kama mwanamke ambaye anaachwa pasipo kuwa na kosa? Hoja kama hiyo inaingiaje kwenye ujumbe wa Injili, wenye kutoa msamaha na nafasi nyingine kwa wenye dhambi wanaotubu?

Kuhitimisha

Biblia inasema tena na tena kwamba talaka inahusisha dhambi kwa mmoja au kwa wenzi wote wawili. Mungu hakukusudia mtu yeyote aachane na mwenzake katika ndoa, lakini kwa rehema Zake alitoa mwanya wa talaka kama uasherati ukitokea. Kwa rehema pia aliweka mpango kwa watu walioachika kuoa na kuolewa tena.

Kama si kwa sababu ya maneno ya Yesu kuhusu kuoa na kuolewa tena, hakuna msomaji yeyote wa Biblia ambaye angedhani kwamba kuoa na kuolewa tena ni dhambi (isipokuwa kwa habari za matukio mawili nadra sana katika agano la kale, na moja la nadra sana katika agano jipya, yaani, kuoa na kuolewa tena baada ya mtu kuachana na mwingine aliyeokoka). Ila, tumepata njia inayokubalika ya kulinganisha kile alichosema Yesu kuhusu kuoa na kuolewa tena, na sheria kali zaidi yenye kukataza kuoa au kuolewa tena kwa kila hali. Hii sheria haifanyi kazi kwa wale ambao wamekwisha achana na kuingia katika ndoa zingine (maana ni sawa na kurudisha mayai yaliyopikwa yawe mabichi), na ni moja ambaye ingesababisha mkanganyiko wa hali ya juu na kuwapelekea watu kuvunja sheria zingine za Mungu. Badal ayake, tumeona kwamba Yesu alikuwa anawasaidia watu kutambua unafiki wao. ALikuwa anawasaidia wale walioamini kwamba hawatazini kamwe waone kwamba wlaikuwa wanazini kwa njia zingine, kwa tamaa zao na kwa mtazamo wao mwepesi kuhusu sababu za kuachana.

Kama Biblia nzima inavyofundisha, msamaha hutolewa kwa wenye dhambi wanaotubu, bila ya kujali dhambi yao, na nafasi ya pili na ya tatu hutolewa kwa wenye dhambi – pamoja na walioachika. Hakuna dhambi katika kuoa na kuolewa tena kwa aina yoyote katika agano jipya, isipokuwa kwa mwamini aliyeachana na mwamini mwenzake. Na hilo halipaswi kutokea kwa sababu waamini wa kweli hawafanyi uchafu, na kwa sababu hiyo hakuna sababu halali ya kuachana. Ikitokea kwa nadra, wote wawili wabaki kama walivyo au wapatane.

Read more »