Robert Waters to my honorable opponent and to all interested readers:
I am happy to affirm the following proposition:
The Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced persons are ‘unbound’ and may marry another.
I had hoped to be able to keep this debate simple and focused by limiting discussion to Paul’s teachings to the Corinthian Christians. When my opponent refused to do that I put out a statement (propositions) on several lists asking for opinions on the matter. Some said it is fair to limit the debate to 1 Corinthians chapter 7 but those known to hold Jack’s position (or one similar) echoed his sentiments that not being able to use Jesus’ teaching would be unfair. My reason for wanting to limit the study to 1 Corinthians should be obvious. I have no problem in harmonizing what Jesus said with what I see Paul to clearly teach, but wars are won a battle at a time. The position I hold allows Paul’s teaching to stand on its own. I intend to show you what Paul clearly taught, and if you have a problem with a position that has Paul contradicting himself you will see that what I present (Paul’s teaching) is sound doctrine.
At some point in the course of this debate I predict that Jack will decide that he is not successfully refuting what I present and he will appeal to Jesus’ teachings and tell you what I say (what Paul clearly said) cannot be correct because of what HE SAYS Jesus said. In the event that Jack does this the debate will become much more involved. I will then attempt to convince you that Jesus’ clear statements (Matt. 19:9; 5:32) are true (without Him contradicting Moses or Paul) and thus when properly translated are understandable and believable. Jack will then attempt to get you to believe or hold on to the assumptions that many have accepted--false assumptions that have had disastrous consequences for the Lord’s church.
I realize that the task before me, to change the minds of brethren who read this discussion, is a difficult one. It is like trying to get the people that are on a train going south at 60 mph to get off that train and to go north. I have to first get the people’s attention and then convince them that they are headed in the wrong direction. It may be very hard for some to hear what I’m saying because most of those on the train work there and they feel duty bound to do all within their power to keep everyone on the train from seeing and hearing the little guy on the ground as they pass by.
I must assume that you are reading this because you want to know the truth. Truth is not obtained by blindly accepting what the employees of the traditional MDR train say. Biblical truth is obtained only by diligent efforts that are guided by basic rules of biblical hermeneutics. I am listing some rules that I believe are most important in this discussion:
1. Before drawing a conclusion as to the meaning of a passage consider who is being addressed and all surrounding circumstances; such as the intentions of the Pharisees, when they asked Jesus questions, the particular point of law that was the focal point of the discussion and the known practices of the Jews that related to the discussion.
2. Do not interpret one passage so as to contradict another.
3. A correct understanding takes into account the language, the context of the statement and all of the related material in the rest of the Bible.
4. Obscure passages may be understood in light of other passages on the same subject that are clear in their meaning.
5. A correct understanding of the passage will violate no logical hermeneutical rules and will be in harmony with all truth. Any theory that has flaws, being hermeneutically unsound, cannot be truth and must therefore be rejected.
If you apply the above rules as you carefully read and study the material presented in this debate, you will see that the position I hold is the only one that will not violate any of the rules listed above. Virtually all the above rules are ignored by those who hold the position of my opponent.
In this installment I shall endeavor to persuade you to look candidly at what Paul taught rather then to focus on one passage among Paul’s teachings that is commonly misused. I intend to help you see that the apostle Paul unquestionably teaches that divorced persons are eligible for marriage. If we were to stick with the text, and all were determined to accept what is most rational, my task would be easy. However, there are some passages that can be misconstrued, which my opponent will weigh heavily upon (contrary to proper hermeneutics), and in his effort to keep you on the train he will seek to convince you that the passages I present that clearly allow divorced persons to marry can’t be true because of what he thinks Jesus said.
Even after extensive publication of my debate proposal, on Paul’s teachings, no one would agree to just deal with the context and the language in 1 Corinthians to defend the idea that Paul taught celibacy for the divorced who could not reconcile. Could this be a tacit admission that they are not really confident that Paul taught what they contend Jesus taught? Be that as it may, Paul’s teachings are forced to harmonize with what is assumed to be Jesus’ teachings. (It is essentially a classic example of “circular reasoning,” which Encarta defines as: “Logic used to describe an argument that does not move logically to a satisfactory conclusion because it assumes as true something that needs to be proved or demonstrated.”) Unfortunately, that idea is contrary to proper hermeneutics.
Jesus said to the apostles (John 6:13): “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”
Commenting on the above, Albert Barnes states:
“Will guide you into all truth. That is, truth which pertained to the establishment of the Christian system, which they were not then prepared to hear. We may here remark that this is a full promise that they would be inspired and guided in founding the new church; and we may observe that the plan of the Savior was replete with wisdom. Though they had been long with him, yet they were not prepared then to hear of the changes that were to occur…"
“Perhaps in the few days that elapsed, of which we have a record in the first and second chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, they learned more of the true nature of the Christian plan than they would have done in months or years even under the teaching of Jesus himself.”
Jesus further taught (Matt 16:18, 19) that the apostles would be the law givers–the ones to make known the gospel as they were inspired by the Spirit.
Barnes: “When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, he meant that whatsoever they forbid in the church should have Divine authority; whatever they permitted, or commanded, should also have Divine authority--that is, should be bound or loosed in heaven, or meet the approbation of God. They were to be guided infallibly in the organization of the church,
(1.) by the teaching of Christ, and
(2.) by the teaching of the Holy Spirit.”
It should be clear to all that Christians can look with confidence to the teachings of the apostles for answers to questions that relate to spiritual matters, not the least of which is the question, “Who is eligible for marriage?”
Questions (with comments) for my opponent:
1. Is it possible for a scholar to say something that is reasonable and true yet contradictory to other statements he has made?
2. Is it better to learn the meaning of a passage from a study of the context or is it better to reject the context and accept the conclusion that is made by most scholars?
3. Is it evident from 1 Corinthians 7:1 that Paul had been asked various questions regarding the same issues that trouble us, which has resulted in the need for this debate?
4. Is it reasonable to conclude that we should consider the answers Paul gave to the Corinthians to be THE answers for us?
5. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband (verse 2).
Would you say that the Apostle Paul, in the above passage, teaches that persons who have no marriage should be allowed to marry?
6. If a man did not have his “own wife” (verse 2) would this mean he did not have A wife, thus being unmarried (not married), or would it just mean he did not have someone else’s wife? If the latter is the case wouldn’t Paul’s statement be superfluous?
7. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
In the above passage does the apostle Paul place great importance upon sexual activity, which is confined to the husband/wife situation?
Yes or no?
8. Who is required to let persons (men and women) have their own spouse?
a) Roman Catholic authorities; b) The parents; c) Preachers; d) Elders;
e) All of the above.
9. Do divorced persons have a spouse (husband or wife)? Do divorced persons have a marriage? No assumptions please. What did Paul teach?
10. Does Paul indicate that there is a difference in being bound and being married, or is that an assumption based upon what is thought to be taught by another teacher, under a different law, as He addressed evil men who were trying to entrap Him in his words?
11. What reason did Paul give for his requiring that EVERY man/woman be allowed to have his/her own spouse (verse 2)? Please note the passage below and state whether the answer is # 1 or # 2 below:
“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”
a) He wanted the reader to believe that some should not be allowed to have a spouse if they were unsuccessful in making a previous marriage work.
b) He knew there was a very great temptation for healthy men and women to commit sexual sins (fornication), thus he pointed to marriage as God’s means of avoiding such sins.
c) Both the above.
d) None of the above.
12. Paul said, regarding the “unmarried,” “if they cannot contain let them marry.”
Since there are some that “cannot contain,” who is guilty of throwing a stumbling block before his “unmarried” (divorced) brother if he tells him he has no right to a marriage and that requirement results in his NOT being able to resist fornication and dying in sin? You may pick from the choices given.
a) God.
b) The devil.
c) The preacher who tells him he is still married and not eligible for marriage.
d) Both B and C.
13. Is there anything in my teaching that is not consistent with God’s statement: “It is not good that the man should be alone”? Yes or no?
Can the same be said of your teachings? Yes or no?
14. When you tell a brother or sister whose spouse has legally divorced him/her that he/she must remain celibate, insisting that it is for his or her own good, do you suppose he/she would think what you are teaching is consistent with what I have quoted (above) from God on the matter?
15. What evil has resulted from the Catholic Church’s edict that forbids marriage for those who would be a priest or nun? Please pick one of the following:
a) An increase in morality and surge in successful efforts in evangelism.
b) The utter failure of the system, a decrease in morality and many souls lost due to unfair, unjust and unscriptural requirements.
c) None of the above.
16. Since it has become apparent that evil results from celibacy (as seen among Catholics), is it reasonable to conclude that Paul teaches celibacy for a woman (outside distressful times) who has been divorced and whose husband refuses to reconcile or who has divorced her and married another? Yes or no?
17. In view of the meaning of the word “unmarried” (“Not married-not joined to another person by marriage, having no spouse”) is it reasonable to conclude that one who is legally/scripturally married is bound (legally and morally obligated) but that one who is “unmarried” is not bound? Yes or no?
18. In view of the meaning of our word divorce, and the Greek word lusis, is it reasonable to conclude that one “loosed” (lusis) from a spouse is may be still married (“in God’s eyes”) or bound (obligated in some way) to that spouse?
19. Paul specified who could not marry. The female had to have reached the “flower of her age” (verse 36) and the male had to be a “man” (verse 36). Are these restrictions reasonable and acceptable? Are Paul’s teachings, above, in harmony with all other scriptures? Is the idea of requiring one who has divorced and has no spouse consistent with God’s justice? Consider Proverbs 17:26: “Also to punish the righteous is not good, [Nor] to smite the noble for [their] uprightness.”
20. Are there righteous people that have gotten divorced and are forced to celibacy because of your teachings? If so, are they being punished or does God just allow an evil spouse to get away with causing this evil? How can it be justified by saying it is a “consequence” of sin when the passage noted above condemns punishing the innocent? In view of the above, does it not seem reasonable that a divorce does indeed free the parties to marry another?
21. Why did Paul mention the “present distress” and could we reasonably conclude that someone was commanded to do something or not do something simply because of the situation at hand, and that the command was not intended to be true for all time?
22. In verse 27, is the word “bound” (deo) used in contrast to the word “loosed” (lusis)? [1Co 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.]
23. Does what Strong and Thayer say about the word “lusis” indicate they thought it refers to divorce? Yes or no?
[Thayer: “1b) of the bond of marriage, divorce”]
24. If loosed does not mean or refer to legal divorce (which authorities define as the act of dissolving a marriage) what word (that Paul used) does mean divorce?
25. Does the word depart (chorizo) indicate a divorce has taken place or does it refer to a separation?
26. Did Robertson, in his word studies, say, in his comments regarding verse 11: “If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she gets separated”?
27. Since scholars do not define the word “depart” as divorce is it reasonable to conclude that one who has departed has simply departed; which is nothing more than a separation?
28. If “depart” (chorizo) means or refers to divorce in verse 11 then why would it also not mean divorce in verse 15? Obviously, if it means divorce in verse 11 then in the case where an “unbeliever” departs (chorizo) the Christian is then divorced. Is this something you are willing to accept? [It should be apparent that there is nothing in the text that indicates they are divorced and thus no longer bound, but that since the Christian is “not under bondage in such cases” to pursue the spouse, he/she may get completely free by legal divorce if he/she so chooses.]
29. Does the discussion pertaining to the “unmarried” end at verse 9? Yes or no?
30. After addressing the “unmarried” Paul, in verse 10, addresses the “married.” Thus, how can you conclude that the “married” whom he addresses in verse 11 are NOT married but are actually divorced?
31. If a person is said to be separated can you logically determine that he/she is legally divorced, which has since the day of Moses required a “bill of divorcement”?
32. Since Paul (in verses 10, 11) did not get into the matter of whether one was “innocent” or “guilty,” i.e., he did not deal with the “cause” of the separation, how can you assert that he taught celibacy for LIFE for a wife that had departed (which you, contrary to all evidence, insist means divorced), if her husband would not reconcile?
33. If the phrase “let her remain unmarried” (verse 11) proves the wife that departed is actually divorced, how do you harmonize verses 8 and 9 with your contention?
1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
34. Do you agree that Paul commands us to let the “unmarried” marry if they cannot contain. Yes or no please.
35. In view of the fact that the word “unmarried” in verses 8 and 9 cannot mean exactly the same as it means in verse 11, is it reasonable to accept the explanation of some scholars as to the words having a bit different meaning in verse 11? Yes or no?
Consider Bloomfield’s comments [The Greek New Testament]:
“From the use of καταλλ and the air of the context it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not, arising from misunderstandings or otherwise.”
Albert Barnes, a noted commentator, drew the wrong final conclusion, but his comments noted below are consistent with the idea that the couple in verse 11 was merely separated:
“But and if she depart-If she have withdrawn by a rash and foolish act; if she has attempted to dissolve the marriage vow, she is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled. She is not at liberty to marry another. This may refer, I suppose, to instances where wives, ignorant of the rule of Christ, and supposing that they had a right to separate themselves from their husbands, had rashly left them, and had supposed that the marriage contract was dissolved.”
The marriage contract is obviously not dissolved rashly leaves her husband and “supposed” the marriage contract was dissolved.
JFB also makes comments that indicate that the woman who departs is not divorced but merely separated:
“1Co 7:11-But and if she depart--or "be separated." If the sin of separation has been committed, that of a new marriage is not to be added (Matt_5:32);
“be reconciled--by appeasing her husband's displeasure, and recovering his good will.”
Gil is another scholar who held to the traditional position but his comments indicate that he understood that the couple in verse 11 was merely separated:
GIL
“1Co 7:11--But and if she depart.... This is said, not as allowing of such a departure, which only in case of fornication is lawful; but supposing it a fact, that a woman cannot be prevailed upon to stay with her husband, but actually forsakes him upon some difference arising between them,”
“let her remain unmarried: she ought not to marry another man; her departure does not make the marriage void; nor is it to be made void by any difference between them, either on religious or civil accounts, only in case of adultery; and therefore, if upon such separation she marries, she is guilty of adultery:
“or be reconciled to her husband; which is rather to be chosen, than to remain separate, though unmarried; if she has given the offence, and is the cause of the separation, she ought to acknowledge it, and ask forgiveness of her husband, and return to him and live in peace with him; and if the fault is on his side, she ought to make use of all proper methods to convince him of it, bring him into good temper, forgive any injury done her, and live peaceably and comfortably together;”
Consider Johnson’s comments [People’s New Testament]:
“But and if she depart. Provided, despite the prohibition, there is such disagreement that she leaves her husband, she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled.
Let not the husband put away his wife. The wife “departs,” because she leaves the home; the husband “puts away his wife,” by sending her off. Both are equally prohibited.”
36. Paul used the words “seek not a wife” when speaking to those “loosed.” Was this a command or was it advice, and why was it given?
37. Did Paul state in verse 28 that those “loosed from a wife” would sin if they married? Yes or no?
38. In verse 11, was it Paul’s hope that separated persons (when one had departed) would reconcile or that they would get married to each other again?
39. Does a couple that has divorced need to marry again? Is it possible for people who are divorced to reconcile with each other but not marry again?
40. If a couple divorces and ONE is free to marry, how can the OTHER NOT be free to marry?
41. If a couple is merely “separated” what happens if one of the parties marries another?
42. You maintain that in verse 11 Paul teaches that persons divorced are not eligible to marry another (except their spouse). Can you think of a way that one might possibly get around what you assert is God’s law? If there is a way to get around what you assert is God’s law why should the reader not conclude that what you say cannot be God’s law because one cannot get around or circumvent God’s true law?
Hint: If Herodias had murdered her first husband do you think John would have needed to tell Herod “it is unlawful for thee to have her”?
43. The apostle Paul said to the “unmarried”: “But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.”
If a divorced person is “unmarried” (which is obviously true) isn’t it true that a divorced person is being told he would not sin if he marries, just as a “virgin” would not sin if/when she marries?
44. Do the translations below translate “unmarried” (agamos) in a way that allows Paul to be consistent?
Waymouth--“Or if she has already left him, let her either remain as she is or be reconciled to him; and that a husband is not to send away his wife.”
Montgomery--"(or if she has already left him let her either remain as she is, or be reconciled to him), and also that a husband is not to put away his wife."
45. In view of the contextual as well as the scholarly support for the idea that agamos does not mean divorce, can we reasonably conclude that what Paul meant by “remain unmarried” (verse 11) was “remain as she is”–in the separated state; which is, for all practical purposes, without a marriage relationship (agamos) but short of being legally divorced?
46. Paul teaches that a wife is to be subject to her husband and that the husband is to love his wife (Eph. 5:24, 25). In 1 Cor. 7:11, Paul commands that the wife not depart from the husband and that the husband not put away (aphiemi) his wife. What is the meaning of APHIEMI in this passage and why should we, contrary to scholars’ comments and translations, argue that Paul had reference to divorce?
The primary teaching of the passage under study is that those who are married and those who are unmarried should remain that way, and not only that but also, if married, to be faithful, which included conjugal rights (verses 4-5). If a couple should have problems and become separated, they should not make unwise and hasty decisions (such as to actually divorce), especially during the time of distress (“the present distress”), but be patient and endeavor to work things out.
I have not only presented unresolvable problems for the position espoused by my opponent who contends that the apostle Paul is teaching a life of celibacy for those divorced, but have also given a reasonable explanation of verse 11--showing it to be consistent with the apostle's other teaching, which is mainly that EVERYONE be allowed to have a marriage so he/she can avoid fornication (1Cor 7:2).
In view of the gist of Paul’s teaching it is not plausible that he entertained the idea that anyone should be punished because of being divorced. Indeed, his sentiment was “let them marry.” Is there some reason that we cannot agree to simply do what Paul commanded?
My brother in Christ, Jack Holt, will now attempt to show you what he thinks is amiss in what I have taught above.
Brotherly,
Robert Waters
The Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced persons are “unbound” and may marry another. Affirm: Robert Waters. Deny: Jack Holt.
I appreciate Brother Waters for entering into this discussion of our differences on this important subject which God speaks to in His holy word. Gentile reader, our efforts are all for your benefit. Our desire is that you use the things we write to help you as you search the scriptures on this matter. May God bless us all as we enter this study, and may it ultimately result in His glory and honor.
Before I examine the specifics that Brother Waters has offered I wish to present two negative arguments.
My first negative argument centers on 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11. In that passage the apostle Paul wrote, “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 NASB). The text is too clear to be misunderstood by an unbiased reading. Regarding the subject we are discussing, it tells divorced people to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.” This being the case, Brother Waters is not justified when he goes to other portions of 1 Corinthians 7 and attempts to apply them to divorced people and teach that they are “unbound” and free to marry.
I will pause here and answer what is an obvious question. What happens if a divorced person ignores the teaching of these verses and marries another? The Bible speaks plainly on this subject. In Mark 10:11, 12, Jesus said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery,” (Mark 10:11-12 NASB). This text makes it very plain that those who disobey Paul’s instructions to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled” sin when they enter a marriage to another, and that the sin they commit is adultery in the second marriage. As long as that marriage is maintained and their former mate is living they commit adultery with their second spouse. It also explains why Paul says his teaching here is not his, but the Lord’s.
There is an exception to this general rule. In Matthew 19:9 Jesus said, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,” (Matthew 19:9 NASB). The force of the exception clause is that the person who divorces their mate for sexual immorality may marry another without committing adultery. The mate they put away, however, continues to be covered under Mark 10:11, 12, and would commit adultery if they should marry another as long as the first spouse lives.
In 1 Corinthians 7:12 Paul begins that verse by saying, “But to the rest I say…” Brother Waters would do well to heed that statement. Paul has already stated God’s will on marriage and divorce, and any interpretation of the passages that precede or follow which contradicts the teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, is an erroneous interpretation.
I beg for the patience of both Brother Waters and the readers as I present my second negative argument. I realize that it will not only cover what we are discussing in this debate, but that it will also cover matters that are beyond the proposition. I do not introduce these matters to cloud the issue, but I introduce them because I believe that if they are correctly understood then the issue we are discussing will be more easily solved.
I believe that in order to understand the issues before us, and some of the other issues before brethren today on this subject, that we must understand what a marriage is, what a divorce is, and what it means to be “bound” in the sight of God to another.
The Bible teaches that marriage is a covenant relationship (see Malachi 2:14). A covenant consist of three things—terms, promises to keep the terms, and ratification. The apostle Paul, in Galatians 3:15 says, “Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it,” (Galatians 3:15 NASB).
Throughout human history there have been many means devised by men to ratify a marriage covenant. In Old Testament times the common means was that a marriage feast was held. At the end of the feast the bride and groom went into a room and spent the night together while their family and friends waited outside. These processes ratified the marriage covenant, and from that point on the two were considered to be married (see for example the Genesis story of Jacob and Leah’s marriage).
In modern America ratification takes place after one has received a license from the state, and exercised that license in what we call a marriage ceremony. In Texas (the state I consider home) you must be 14 with parental consent, 18 without, and obtain a license which is only valid for 30 days. Once that license is exercised the two are considered to be married.
What a lot of people do not understand is that two are joined by more than their marriage covenant. Beyond the marriage covenant the Bible teaches that when two marry lawfully according to divine law they are “bound” by God. The word “bound” simply means “to be under obligation.” When two marry they are under many obligations from God. For example, the Bible commands the wife to submit to her husband, and it commands the husband to love his wife.
In Romans 7:2, 3, the Bible says, “For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man,” (Romans 7:2-3 NASB). This passage clearly teaches that when two marry they are bound (under obligation) to each other as long as they live. Hence, should they divorce and one go out and marry another, they commit adultery in that second marriage.
Another concept that many do not understand is the concept of divorce. Divorce is the undoing of the marriage covenant. Under the Old Law a divorce took place when a man wrote out a bill of divorcement and gave it to his wife and sent her out of the house. Under modern law, divorce is a legal process. When two go to the court house and get a divorce they move from a married state to an unmarried state—they are divorced. 1 Corinthians 7:11 makes this clear when it says to divorced people that they are to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.”
All of the talk we hear today from some that people are “divorced in the eyes of the law, but are still married in God’s eyes” is simply a bunch of hogwash. The concept that two can divorce and play some kind of waiting game and later “put away” the other is also a bunch of hogwash. When two people divorce, they are unmarried in God’s eyes, in the civil government’s eyes, and they ought to be unmarried in the eyes of brethren. The issue at that point is, why did they divorce? If they did not divorce because their mate was sexually immoral, then they are obligated to remain unmarried or be reconciled.
Having said that, we must recognize that simply because a marriage covenant has been dissolved by divorce this does not mean that all of the obligations the two have towards one another are dissolved. In other words, when two divorce the general rule is that they are still bound (i.e., obligated) to one another. Again, Romans 7:2, 3, makes this clear when it says that they are bound so long as they both live, and that if one so bound should go and marry another they commit adultery. 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, also makes this clear when it tells people who are unmarried by virtue of divorce that they must “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.”
We ought not to think it strange that two people can be divorced and yet be bound (i.e., obligated) to one another. Even the civil law recognizes such bonds, and when a man divorces his wife civil law will often obligate him to support her with alimony. The two are divorced, they are unmarried, but they still have obligations to one another.
Now, having established these facts the application to the proposition, I would think, is obvious. Brother Waters has signed a proposition that says that all divorced people are “unbound.” In view of Romans 7:2, 3, and 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, and Mark 10:11, 12, and Matthew 19:9 it should be obvious that Robert is simply wrong about this. Generally speaking divorced people are bound to one another so long as they both live. There is an exception in Matthew 19:9, but beyond that divorce people are bound (i.e., obligated) to remain unmarried, or else be reconcile. This being the case, Brother Water’s proposition is evidently in error.
I will now move to examine the specific matters Brother Waters has brought to our attention.
I will begin by making a general observation. Brother Waters has done what most false teachers do when they get into a discussion and when they are in the affirmative. Instead of presenting us with a solid affirmative statement of his own views Brother Waters has promptly proceeded to the negative and presented me with some 46 questions concerning my views. I will answer each of the questions, but I will also make a prediction. Every time I try and represent his view he is going to say I have misrepresented him. By not presenting us with a solid affirmative statement he has left that option open to himself. It is a common tool of false teachers, and the reader should simply prepare himself for it.
I will pass reviewing the general comments he made in his opening statement with one exception. While telling us how to study the Bible properly he states, “A correct understanding takes into account the language, the context of the statement and all of the related material in the rest of the Bible.” I am pleased to see he included this common rule of Bible study inasmuch as he initially tried to limit my ability to use any scripture except the scripture that was found in 1 Corinthians 7. It is hard to understand how any Bible student would think such a rule was reasonable. Nevertheless, he agreed to debate, and he agreed that all of the scriptures should be available to use, and for that we are thankful.
Now, to his questions…
1. Is it possible for a scholar to say something that is reasonable and true yet contradictory to other statements he has made?
Yes.
2. Is it better to learn the meaning of a passage from a study of the context or is it better to reject the context and accept the conclusion that is made by most scholars?
It is better to learn the meaning of a passage from a study of the context, including the statement itself, the immediate context (the material surrounding the statement) and the remote context (other passages in the Bible that speak to the same subject).
3. Is it evident from 1 Corinthians 7:1 that Paul had been asked various questions regarding the same issues that trouble us, which has resulted in the need for this debate?
Paul had been asked various questions, but I do not believe they pertained directly to the position Brother Waters is supposed to be affirming. I am not aware of anyone in New Testament times who takes the absurd position that he does on this issue—that all divorced people may marry another. Of course, the reader is only left to guess what that position is from the questions, but let me lay it out for you very clearly. Brother Waters believes that any individual with God’s approval may divorce his wife and marry another. If that is not the force of his proposition, then I am unable to understand a plain English statement.
4. Is it reasonable to conclude that we should consider the answers Paul gave to the Corinthians to be THE answers for us?
Provided we are asking the same questions that the Corinthians asked, yes.
5. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband (verse 2). Would you say that the Apostle Paul, in the above passage, teaches that persons who have no marriage should be allowed to marry?
I would say the Apostle Paul teaches that every man may have one wife, and every wife one husband. I do not see authority in this passage for any man or woman to “marry another.” In view of 1 Corinthians 10:11, 12, it would be improper to apply this passage to divorced people for there Paul commands them to remain unmarried or be reconciled.
6. If a man did not have his “own wife” (verse 2) would this mean he did not have A wife, thus being unmarried (not married), or would it just mean he did not have someone else’s wife? If the latter is the case wouldn’t Paul’s statement be superfluous?
I do not understand the question. I will attempt to answer what I think you are asking by saying that it is possible for a man not to have a wife (to be unmarried), but to still be bound to someone by virtue of having divorced them. The general rule in such cases is that he must remain unmarried or be reconciled. This being the case, Paul’s statement is not superfluous.
7. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. In the above passage does the apostle Paul place great importance upon sexual activity, which is confined to the husband/wife situation? Yes or no?
Yes, but the desire for sexual activity does not in and of itself authorize one, or as your proposition says, all to divorce and marry another.
8. Who is required to let persons (men and women) have their own spouse? a) Roman Catholic authorities; b) The parents; c) Preachers; d) Elders; e) All of the above.
I would answer “e,” but I would also say that our issue is not over whether or not one can have a spouse, but whether or not one can have another. There is a big difference between the two ideas.
9. Do divorced persons have a spouse (husband or wife)? Do divorced persons have a marriage? No assumptions please. What did Paul teach?
As I explained in my second negative argument, divorced persons are unmarried, but they are bound by God’s law and must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. Technically, they do not have a spouse, nor a marriage, but they are bound to remain unmarried or to be reconciled. The apostle Paul teaches this in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, and in Romans 7:2, 3.
11. What reason did Paul give for his requiring that EVERY man/woman be allowed to have his/her own spouse (verse 2)? Please note the passage below and pick which answer below you prefer. “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” a) He wanted the reader to believe that some should not be allowed to have a spouse if they were unsuccessful in making a previous marriage work. b) He knew there was a very great temptation for healthy men and women to commit sexual sins (fornication), thus he pointed to marriage as God’s means of avoiding such sins. c) Both the above. d) None of the above.
I would first point out that our debate is not over whether or not every person is entitled to a spouse. Our debate is whether they are entitled to another spouse—you are affirming that all may divorce and marry another. Consequently, the question is immaterial. Nevertheless, the answer is that every person is entitled to one spouse (not another spouse as your proposition affirms) because of the great temptation for healthy men and women to commit sexual sins (fornication), thus he pointed to marriage to one as God’s means of avoiding such sins.
12. Paul said, regarding the “unmarried,” “if they cannot contain let them marry.” Since there are some that “cannot contain,” who is guilty of throwing a stumbling block before his “unmarried” (divorced) brother if he tells him he has no right to a marriage and that requirement results in his NOT being able to resist fornication and dying in sin? You may pick from the choices given below: a) God. b) The devil. c) The preacher who convinces him he is still married and not eligible for marriage. d) Both b and c.
Your question ignores the fact that Paul speaks to people unmarried by virtue of divorce and commands them to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. That being the case you are trying to apply Paul’s statement to a class of people that the context clearly indicates the statement was not intended to be applied to.
Additionally, divorced people may marry if they cannot contain, they are simply limited to marrying their former spouse in such cases. They may not marry another because to do so is to commit the very thing Paul is trying to avoid in these instructions—sexual immorality (Mark 10:11, 12; Matthew 19:9).
13. Is there anything in my teaching that is not consistent with God’s statement: “It is not good that the man should be alone”? Yes or no? Can the same be said of your teachings? Yes or no?
In regard to your teaching the answer is “yes.” God teaches it is good for a divorced person to remain unmarried (i.e., alone) if they cannot reconcile with their mate (1 Corinthians 10:11, 12.
In regard to my teaching, the answer is “no.”
14. When you tell a brother or sister whose spouse has legally divorced him/her that he/she must remain celibate, insisting that it is for his or her own good, do you suppose he/she would think what you are teaching is consistent with what I have quoted (above) from God on the matter? Do you show them the above passage as well as other passages in Paul’s teachings?
I have never told anyone that they must remain celibate. I have always told people that they must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. I share all of God’s teaching on this subject with everyone who asks me.
15. What evil has resulted from the Catholic Church’s edict that forbids marriage for those who would be a priest or nun? Please pick one of the following: a) An increase in morality and surge in successful efforts in evangelism. b) The utter failure of the system, a decrease in morality and many souls lost due to unfair, unjust and unscriptural requirements. c) None of the above.
This question is immaterial to the debate. However, I would characterize this teaching as unscriptural, and as with all unscriptural teaching it has led to sin. Robert, have you considered the evil that will come from your view that all may divorce their spouse and marry another?
16. Since it has become apparent that evil results from celibacy (as seen among Catholics), is it reasonable to conclude that Paul teaches celibacy for a woman (outside distressful times) who has been divorced and whose husband refuses to reconcile or who has divorced her and married another? Yes or no?
More evil results when a divorced person marries another than when they obey God and remain unmarried or else be reconciled. Divorce is a dreadful sin in the sight of God, and marriages in which divorced people have married another encourage this evil.
17. In view of the meaning of the word “unmarried” (“Not married-not joined to another person by marriage, having no spouse”) is it reasonable to conclude that one who is legally/scripturally married is bound (legally and morally obligated) but that one who is “unmarried” is not bound? Yes or no?
No, that is not a reasonable, nor is it a scriptural conclusion. Please review my second affirmative argument on this subject.
18. In view of the meaning of our word divorce, and the Greek word lusis, is it reasonable to conclude that one “loosed” (lusis) from a spouse is may be still married (“in God’s eyes”) or bound (obligated in some way) to that spouse?
I do not understand your question. The phrase “is may be still married” is neither good grammar, nor logical. If, however, you asking can a person be divorced in civil law’s eyes, but married in God’s eyes, the answer is no. If you are asking can a person be divorced, and yet still be bound (i.e., obligated) to their former spouse, then the answer is yes. Please review my second negative argument on this subject.
19. Paul specified who could not marry. The female had to have reached the “flower of her age” (verse 36) and the male had to be a “man” (verse 36). Are these restrictions reasonable and acceptable? Are Paul’s teachings, above, in harmony with all other scriptures? Is the idea of requiring one who has divorced and has no spouse consistent with God’s justice? Consider Proverbs 17:26: “Also to punish the righteous is not good, [Nor] to smite the noble for [their] uprightness.”
You ask several questions here. Anything Paul teaches is reasonable and acceptable, and in harmony with all other scriptures, so that answers those questions. However, your conclusions about what Paul teaches are neither reasonable nor acceptable.
This question does not make any sense, either logically or grammatically—“Is the idea of requiring one who has divorced and has no spouse consistent with God’s justice?”
You seem to be arguing that God’s requirement that divorced individuals remain unmarried, or else be reconciled, is some form of punishment. You are simply mistaken about that. God’s laws exist to protect men and women, and to protect the institution of marriage.
20. Are there righteous people that have gotten divorced and are forced to celibacy because of your teachings? If so, are they being punished or does God just allow an evil spouse to get away with causing this evil? How can it be justified by saying it is a “consequence” of sin when the passage noted above condemns punishing the innocent? In view of the above, does it not seem reasonable that a divorce does indeed free the parties to marry another?
Again, you ask several questions using one number. There are people who through no fault of their own are forced to a divorce, and thus are forced to remain unmarried or else be reconciled. As I said before, I have never taught anyone that they must remain celibate. They may be reconciled if and when that opportunity presents itself.
People who are divorced through no fault of their own do suffer, but no, I do not believe that God is punishing them. Additionally, I don’t believe that any sinner, including the one who unjustly divorces his mate, will get away with anything. All men shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give an answer for what they have done.
No, these arguments do not reasonably lead to the conclusion that divorce parties are free to marry another, and they especially do not lead to your conclusion that all may divorce and marry another. Sometimes as Christians we will suffer because of the wrongs of others. Such suffering does not alter God’s will for us. We cannot, as you are arguing, sin to stop suffering. In other words, one who is unjustly divorced (and thus must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled) cannot alleviate that suffering by sinning through marrying another. He would simply be moving from one form of suffering, into another form of greater suffering inasmuch as he would sever his fellowship with God.
21. Why did Paul mention the “present distress” and could we reasonably conclude that someone was commanded to do something or not do something simply because of the situation at hand, and that the command was not intended to be true for all time?
This has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
Paul mentioned the present distress (probably persecution) and argued that if possible it might be best to avoid marriage until it was over. However, he clearly states that those who chose to marry (not marry another!) may do so.
22. In verse 27, is the word “bound” (deo) used in contrast to the word “loosed” (lusis)? [1Co 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.]
Yes.
23. Does what Strong and Thayer say about the word “lusis” indicate they thought it refers to divorce? Yes or no? [Thayer: “1b) of the bond of marriage, divorce”].
As Thayer demonstrates the word may be used of a divorce, but it depends upon the context in which it appears. It is exactly like our English word “loose.” It can be used in a context to refer to divorce, but it certainly doesn’t mean this in every context. I urge Brother Waters and the reader to review my second negative argument on the distinction between the concept of being bound and being married, and being loosed and being divorced.
24. If loosed does not mean or refer to legal divorce (which authorities define as the act of dissolving a marriage) what word (that Paul used) does mean divorce?
Paul uses the word aphie¯mi, meaning to “send away, or divorce” (1 Corinthians 7:12).
25. Does the word depart (chorizo) indicate a divorce has taken place or does it refer to a separation?
It depends upon the context in which it appears. All divorces are departures, but not all departures are divorces.
26. Did Robertson, in his word studies, say, in his comments regarding verse 11: “If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she gets separated”?
I could not find this quotation. What I said above applies here also—all divorces are separations, but not all separations are divorces.
I did find this quotation from Robertson on the word depart: “Third class condition, undetermined. If, in spite of Christ’s clear prohibition, she get separated (ingressive passive subjunctive), let her remain unmarried (meneto¯ agamos). Paul here makes no allowance for remarriage of the innocent party as Jesus does by implication.” Clearly Robertson views the “departure” as a divorce inasmuch as he acknowledges the departure leaves the two unmarried. This would not be the result of a mere separation.
27. Since scholars do not define the word “depart” as divorce is it reasonable to conclude that one who has departed has simply departed; which is nothing more than a separation?
Brother Waters is not being fair with words in this question. Sometimes we use the English word “depart” to refer to a divorce. Does the fact that most English dictionaries don’t include this example mean the word cannot have that meaning? Just so, the word “depart” in 1 Corinthians 7:11, 12, clearly refers to a divorce. The context is the deciding factor, not the dictionary in this case. Neither in pagan society then, nor in our society today was it common practice to merely separate and marry another. In both societies the common practice was to depart in the sense of a divorce before marrying another. Also, in neither society does mere separation leave two unmarried.
The answer to your question, Brother Waters, is no, it is not reasonable to conclude the word depart refers merely to a separation. Even if it did, all divorces are separations, and therefore you do not have a case.
28. If “depart” (chorizo) means or refers to divorce in verse 11 then why would it also not mean divorce in verse 15? Obviously, if it means divorce in verse 11 then in the case where an “unbeliever” departs (chorizo) the Christian is then divorced. Is this something you are willing to accept? [It should be apparent that there is nothing in the text that indicates they are divorced and thus no longer bound, but that since the Christian is “not under bondage in such cases” to pursue the spouse, he/she may get completely free by legal divorce if he/she so chooses.]
In both verses the word “depart” is broad enough to cover both a separation and/or a divorce and the teaching in both verses apply whether it is a mere separation or a divorce that is involved.
When Paul says the believer is not “under bondage” he is referring to the fact that the believer does no wrong in the separation/divorce since it is the unbelieving mate who insists upon this course of action. This is the limit and extent of his meaning. In such cases the believer (according to 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11) must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
29. Does the discussion pertaining to the “unmarried” end at verse 9? Yes or no?
No, there are various instructions pertaining to the “unmarried” after verse 9.
30. After addressing the “unmarried” Paul, in verse 10, addresses the “married.” Thus, how can you conclude that the “married” whom he addresses in verse 11 are NOT married but are actually divorced?
Your question does not make good sense! How can I conclude that the married in verse 11 are not married but are actually divorced??? This doesn’t even make good nonsense.
The text has a parenthetical statement referring to married people leaving the marriage, and verse 11 commands the married not to divorce. “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife,” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 NASB). Please re-ask the question using good logic and grammar.
31. If a person is said to be separated can you logically determine that he/she is legally divorced, which has since the day of Moses required a “bill of divorcement”?
Again, your question doesn’t make good sense, but if I understand what you are asking, yes, I see a difference between a mere separation and a divorce. However, in either case should one marry another they commit adultery in the second relationship (Mark 10:11, 12; Matthew 19:9).
32. Since Paul (in verses 10, 11) did not get into the matter of whether one was “innocent” or “guilty,” i.e., he did not deal with the “cause” of the separation, how can you assert that he taught celibacy for LIFE for a wife that had departed (which you, contrary to all evidence, insist means divorced), if her husband would not reconcile?
Again, I have never taught anyone that they must remain celibate. I have always taught divorced people that they must remain unmarried, or be reconciled.
You are asking “how” I hold a position, and that is not a reasonable question. Restate the question and ask me “why” I hold the position I do, and I will be able to answer it. Indeed, if you read and understood my two negative arguments you understand “why” I hold the position I do.
33. If the phrase “let her remain unmarried” (verse 11) proves the wife that departed is actually divorced, how do you harmonize verses 8 and 9 with your contention?
Very simply, Paul is speaking to two different classes of unmarried people. In verses 8 and 9 he is talking to those unmarried by virtue of never having been married, and in verse 11 he is talking to those who are unmarried by virtue of divorce.
34. Do you agree that Paul commands us to let the “unmarried” marry if they cannot contain. Yes or no please.
In contest he is speaking of the unmarried who are unmarried by virtue of never having married, and in that context yes, I believe that Paul teaches they may marry if they cannot contain. However, to apply that statement to verse 10 and 11 is to do violence to the context since Paul clearly commands the unmarried in those verses (i.e., the unmarried by virtue of divorce) not to marry another.
35. In view of the fact that the word “unmarried” in verses 8 and 9 cannot mean exactly the same as it means in verse 11, is it reasonable to accept the explanation of some scholars as to the words having a bit different meaning in verse 11? Yes or no?
First, gentle reader, I think it is important that you note that Brother Roberts is here admitting that the word “unmarried” in verses 8 and 9 does not carry the same meaning it carries in verse 11. You drive a peg there and watch him because before this debate is over he will deny that he takes that position.
If, as your question is worded, the word unmarried “cannot mean exactly the same” in these two verses, then yes, it is “reasonable” to expect scholars to hold that the word has different meanings in the two verses. I must say, your questions humor me when the first part of the question rules out any other conclusion than the one you ask for. In such cases it is not a question at all, but a statement. Nevertheless, you must develop your material as you see fit.
After asking this question Brother Waters includes several quotations from scholars in attempt to show that some of them agree with his position that verses 10 and 11are not talking about a divorce, but a separation. Even if the scholars agreed with him, a fact I am unwilling to concede at this point, all divorces involve separations and would therefore be included in the teaching of verses 10 and 11.
I believe each of the scholars he cites also mention that this person departs leaving them in an unmarried state. Since a mere separation does not do this, I have to believe Brother Waters is misrepresenting these scholars when he tries to interpret them as saying only a mere separation is involved in these passages.
It is time for a question of my own, and if Brother Waters will do as I am doing then he will cite this question and answer it in his next article. Brother Waters, does a mere separation leave two people unmarried? Gentle reader, you watch him and see if he answers this question, and you rest assured if he does not that he is not doing his duty.
36. Paul used the words “seek not a wife” when speaking to those “loosed.” Was this a command or was it advice, and why was it given?
It was advice, and it was given in the view of the then present distress.
It has no application to our proposition since we are considering people that are discussed in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11—people who have divorced their mates. Such people (as I demonstrate in my second negative argument) are still bound by God’s law to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
37. Did Paul state in verse 28 that those “loosed from a wife” would sin if they married? Yes or no?
Paul states in verse 28 that those loosed would not sin if they marry. However, the person of our proposition is not loosed—they are bound to remain unmarried or be reconciled to their former spouse.
38. In verse 11, was it Paul’s hope that separated persons (when one had departed) would reconcile or that they would get married to each other again? If you say they needed to get married what proof is there they were divorced?
The proof that they were divorced is that Paul called them “unmarried.” Please review the material I presented in my second negative argument on what constitutes a marriage and what constitutes a divorce (thus leaving one in an unmarried state).
39. Does a couple that has divorced need to marry again? Is it possible for people who are divorced to reconcile with each other but not marry again?
Yes, its possible. It’s possible for people to kill themselves, but it is not approved of by God.
Divorced individuals must marry each other again in order for their sexual conduct to not involve sexual immorality. While divorced they are unmarried.
40. If a couple divorces and ONE is free to marry, how can the OTHER NOT be free to marry?
Brother Waters, this is the easiest question you have asked. They are not free to marry another because Jesus and Paul said they are not free to marry another.
You know, when I had small children at home I had a white sign with big red letters on it behind my desk. When ever my children would question my will as to why I was requiring something of them I pointed to the sign. It said, “I’m the daddy, that’s why.” It is sad that we live in a time when people question the will of God and demand to understand why before obeying. In essence that is what Brother Waters is doing here. Unless he can understand why Jesus commands a thing he apparently doesn’t believe he has to do what the Savior commands. God hates divorce, but brother Waters is telling us that all people may divorce and marry another.
41. If a couple is merely “separated” what happens if one of the parties marries another?
They commit bigamy.
42. You maintain that in verse 11 Paul teaches that persons divorced are not eligible to marry another (except their spouse). Can you think of a way that one might possibly get around what you assert is God’s law? If there is a way to get around what you assert is God’s law why should the reader not conclude that what you say cannot be God’s law because one cannot get around or circumvent God’s true law? Hint: If Herodias had murdered her first husband do you think John would have needed to tell Herod “it is unlawful for thee to have her”?
Murdering a divorced spouse, does not constitute getting “around God’s law.” It leaves you just as unjust (i.e., sinful) as if you had simply divorced and married another. It would simply be an additional sin that you are guilty of. There is no way to get “around God’s law” without incurring guilt.
As regards Herod and Herodias, yes, I think John would have been obligated to tell him that, and to tell him he was a murderer as well. Any method one uses to dispose of a wife in order to marry another, whether it be murder or divorce, results in an adulterous marriage. We must not only obey the letter of the law, but it spirit (intention) as well.
43. The apostle Paul said to the “unmarried”: “But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.” If a divorced person is “unmarried” (which is obviously true) isn’t it true that a divorced person is being told he would not sin if he marries, just as a “virgin” would not sin if/when she marries? No, it is not true because such a conclusion would violate the immediate context (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11), and the remote context (Mark 10:11, 12; Matthew 19:9).
44. Do the translations below translate “unmarried” (agamos) in a way that allows Paul to be consistent? Waymouth--“Or if she has already left him, let her either remain as she is or be reconciled to him; and that a husband is not to send away his wife.” Montgomery--"(or if she has already left him let her either remain as she is, or be reconciled to him), and also that a husband is not to put away his wife.”
I’m not charging Paul with an inconsistency. Are you? If not, then your question is nonsense.
The fact is that the context must be allowed to have the final say as to the meaning of a word. Whether we use “depart,” “leave,” or “left” the context must determine what kind of leaving is involved. In as much as the leaving here involves leaving the two in an unmarried state it is a necessary implication that divorce is what is being referred to.
45. In view of the contextual as well as the scholarly support for the idea that agamos does not mean divorce, can we reasonably conclude that what Paul meant by “remain unmarried” (verse 11) was “remain as she is”–in the separated state; which is, for all practical purposes, without a marriage relationship (agamos) but short of being legally divorced?
I disagree with the premise of the question. In other words, I disagree that scholars as a general rule see this passage as you do (a mere separation) and in fact assert that the vast majority, if not the entirety of scholarship sees this passage as referring to a divorce. Since I disagree with the premise I obviously disagree with the conclusion.
The word translated “unmarried” here is agamos. It means “Thayer Definition: 1) unmarried, unwedded, single.” It logically demands the conclusion that in 1 Corinthians 7:11 a divorce is what is being discussed in the parenthetical statement.
46. Paul teaches that a wife is to be subject to her husband and that the husband is to love his wife (Eph. 5:24, 25). In 1 Cor. 7:11, Paul commands that the wife not depart from the husband and that the husband not put away (aphiemi) his wife. What is the meaning of APHIEMI in this passage and why should we, contrary to scholars’ comments and translations, argue that Paul had reference to divorce?
Again, I disagree with your premise that scholars believe that “aphiemi” refers to something other than a divorce in this context. The NASV translates the term “divorce” so there are literally hundreds of scholars who would disagree with your premise.
Brother Waters, gentle reader, I have answered every one of his questions—and this in spite of the fact that he was supposed to be in the affirmative and not questioning me and my position. I have presented my position in two negative arguments. The Bible does not authorize all divorced people to marry another.
I want you to wrap your minds around the word “all” in my opponent’s proposition. Here it is again…
The Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced persons are “unbound” and may marry another. Affirm: Robert Waters. Deny: Jack Holt.
If this proposition is true then a man can divorce 100 wives and marry 100 others in their place and not violate the will of God. This was exactly the position the Jews of Jesus’ day took, and they were wrong. In no dispensation has God allowed for divorce and marriage of another without sin being involved.
Brother Waters likes to cite the KJV of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as authority to divorce one’s wife and marry another. It says…
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4 KJV)
As much as I love the KJV and respect the influence it has had on the English speaking world it is simply wrong in this translation. New versions correct this, and instead of saying “she may go and be another man’s wife” they say “if she go and become another man’s wife.” There is a world of difference in saying she “may” do it, and saying “if” she does it. In either case, verse 4 emphasizes that the woman who is divorced and who becomes another man’s wife is “defiled.” That should be enough to tell us that God does not approve of divorce and marriage to another.
The NASV translates this passage…
“and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife,” (Deuteronomy 24:2 NASB).
The ESV translates this passage…
“and if she goes and becomes another man's wife,” (Deuteronomy 24:2 ESV).
The literal Hebrew says…
“and if she goes out from his house and goes and becomes another man's wife,” (Deuteronomy 24:2 LITV).
The Jews of Jesus’ day were wrong to believe that they could divorce and marry another, and Robert Waters is wrong today when he believes and teaches that all people may divorce and marry another with God’s approval.
I await brother Waters second affirmative.
The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced persons are ‘unbound’ and may marry another.
Affirm: Robert Waters. Deny: Jack Holt.
Jack wrote:
“I appreciate Brother Waters for entering into this discussion of our differences on this important subject which God speaks to in His holy word. Gentle reader, our efforts are all for your benefit. Our desire is that you use the things we write to help you as you search the scriptures on this matter. May God bless us all as we enter this study, and may it ultimately result in His glory and honor.”
The above words are indicative of a good attitude toward the truth, toward this debate and toward me, Jack’s opponent. I appreciate Jack entering into this debate with me. Our effort is to help each other learn and, mostly, to help you, the reader, arrive at a conclusion that is the most logical and reasonable based upon the evidence. I beg for your patience because of the length of this installment. Remember, I did try my best to find an opponent that would be willing to limit the debate and I warned that not doing so would make it much more involved.
You may be one that has not swallowed the teachings of men who in their writings continually assert, without clear scriptural support, the idea that persons divorced are not eligible for marriage to another unless they divorced their spouse for adultery. Perhaps it has occurred to you that things being taught (that are generally accepted) just do not add up and you have seen that there is way too much assumption going on, way too much bullying and way too little honest study and healthy debate. Perhaps you have realized that Jesus could not have flatly contradicted the Law on MDR. Jack realizes it and has conjured up a detour around that huge obstacle, which I will explain more fully and refute later in this installment.
I want to address, here in the beginning, a major misrepresentation that Jack made repeatedly in his first negative, because your having heard it may have caused you to have difficulty hearing what I’m saying.
Jack wrote:
“If this proposition is true then a man can divorce 100 wives and marry 100 others in their place and not violate the will of God. This was exactly the position the Jews of Jesus’ day took, and they were wrong. In no dispensation has God allowed for divorce and marriage of another without sin being involved.”
First, what Jack said above could be said to be true regarding his own doctrine. He believes in divorce. He believes one can divorce a wife and marry another. He just maintains that it has to be for adultery, which his proof text does not even say. The NASB really slams him on this point. It gives “immorality” as the meaning of moichao. I am certain he would not be favorable of a man divorcing his wife for many of the things that are condemned by the root meaning of this word.
Questions for Jack:
1) Do you believe if a man lusts after a woman who is not his wife that he has done something immoral?
2) Do you believe that an immoral act committed by a man allows the woman to scripturally divorce him?
3) If a man admitted to his wife that he had lusted for another woman would she be justified in divorcing him?
Jack, you and the reader see the problem with your position here. When I explain the exception clause, if you are able to hear it, surely you will see that my position does not have this conundrum but reasonably explains Jesus’ teachings in a way that does not have a disastrous effect on legally married persons wanting to follow Jesus nor should it have a disastrous effect on the unity of the brotherhood, but to the contrary.
Let this be a hint to you that Jack really is not even close to understanding what Jesus actually taught, unless he is listening to me. J We will get to Jesus’ teaching on this later. Now back to the misrepresentation.
Jack implies that my proposition would allow a man to divorce his faithful wife and “not violate the will of God.” It seems that my friend has forgotten that he believes in divorce and he has shot himself in the foot. If you carefully follow this debate you will see that I am as strong against wrongful divorce as Jack is, if not stronger.
In my first installment I quoted Paul (see below) and I did so expecting that Jack would be tempted to misrepresent my position, as others have done.
The following was part of question number 46:
“Paul teaches that a wife is to be subject to her husband and that the husband is to love his wife (Eph. 5:24, 25).”
In view of what I presented, no person can divorce his faithful legal/scriptural spouse and “not violate the will of God.” Thus, my proposition should not be discarded without proper consideration because of some great consequence that my opponent has dreamed up. There are no evil consequences to following the truth, and I am telling you the truth in this debate. On the other hand, the error my opponent teaches results in consequences that are real, obvious and severe.
My intention in my first affirmative was to present some basic reasoning for the logical conclusion that Paul clearly taught that divorced persons are unmarried, unbound, and eligible for marriage, either to the previous spouse or another. My long list of questions was designed to clarify the issues and to help each of us come to a better understanding of the context surrounding verse 11, which so many have misused. The apostle Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians so clearly support my proposition one needs a lot of help not to see it. Just misconstruing one passage in Paul’s teachings to make it appear he is contradicting himself is not enough for the devil. Long ago, he gained ground with his doctrine of “forbidding to marry” by the use of improper translations, which make it virtually impossible for the casual reader, using inaccurate translations, to properly understand the teachings of Jesus. My opponent has also gone to Romans and misconstrued Paul’s teaching there as well.
Let us now note, once again, the clear passages of Paul that support my position:
1 Cor. 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Cor. 7:8, 9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1Co 7:27, 19 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
The above passages are very clear. I explained them fully in my first affirmative as well as other passages in the context. Nevertheless, I knew my opponent would labor to explain them away. But they are still there. At least, as I write this, they were still in the KJV a few minutes ago. If I understand Jack correctly, he admits that one divorced is unmarried but those who are divorced are still bound, but he says there is an exception. His sole basis for drawing this conclusion, as far as Paul’s teaching is concerned, was on the assumption that in 1 Corinthians 7:11 the woman in the passage was actually divorced. He has asserted that the phrase “let them remain unmarried” proves they were divorced. However, I showed from various versions and highly respected scholars, just from the limited number in my own library, that the Greek word agamos evidently has a different meaning in this context, and it obviously does. Note Bloomfield’s comments once again:
“From the use of καταλλ and the air of the context it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not, arising from misunderstandings or otherwise.”
What was my opponent’s reply? He suggests that I misrepresented the scholars. Well, I noted that Barnes held the “traditional” position. His comment was really of little help to me. The clear comments were from Bloomfield and Robertson. I’m confident they did not have the whole truth on MDR. I just showed what they said about “let her remain unmarried” (1 Corinthians 7:11), a passage that has often been misused in an effort to get around what Paul really taught.
Yes, indeed, as Bloomfield stated, it is plain, but my opponent still hangs onto the idea that the woman who departs, which does not mean divorce, is actually divorced.
Robertson: “If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she get separated”?
Why do you suppose Robertson did not say divorce? Do you think he thought a divorce and a separation were the same thing? As with Bloomfield, Robertson understood the context.
Just as I predicted, Jack determined that he could not sustain his proposition or defeat my arguments from the passage itself or from the context. Thus, very early in his comments he sought support from other teachings outside of 1 Cor. 7. So, in the course of this installment I shall show you the true meaning of the passages Jack has misused in his effort to teach you that Paul’s command “let them marry” does not apply to all persons who are divorced. What Jack did is the primary reason for the length of this installment.
Jack also suggested that I just was not believing what the text said, but that argument is no stronger than the argument of a Baptist preacher who affirms salvation by faith only by stating that John 3:16 means what it says. Obviously, we have to use some hermeneutics in this matter.
Whether or not you learn the truth from this debate may be largely determined by how much stock you place in some of the newer versions like the one from which Jack likes to quote. If he were to stay with the ASV, widely known for its scholarship, which is second to none in accuracy and reliability, he would not have a leg to stand on. He knows that is true so he quotes from the NASB when he puts forth his proof texts.
Let us now briefly discuss a few things about Jack’s favored version.
First, while the NASB claims to have been done by a group of scholars the names of those scholars were not released, according to a review I read. That is the first red flag that pops up. How can you be expected to believe someone whose name you are not given and about whom you know nothing?
Second, the NASB is basically the product of F. Dewey Lockman. Mr. Lockman was a Baptist and a Mason. Regarding his “conversion” he says, "It was a miraculous conversion and I cried for three days." If indeed there were a group of scholars, as claimed, there can be no doubt as to whether Mr. Lockman picked them. If Jack Holt had the financial resources to produce a version, and desired to so do, he would pick scholars who, according to HIS own thinking, are true to the text, especially on the MDR issue.
It is evident that Lockman and his scholars thought Jesus said “divorced” persons commit adultery when they marry because “put away” has come to mean divorce in the minds of many due to intentional and continual misuse. Indeed, the changes we see in translations affecting MDR is are just another example of putting the creed into the Bible. The NASB was supposed to remain true to the ASV but they obviously failed on the matter of divorce. The ASV never translated APOLUO as divorce. I don’t think the ASV helps Jack with any of the words that he needs to mean divorce to sustain his proposition or to successfully deny mine. As you follow me you shall see why this is so significant.
Now, I suspect that you may be at least partially convinced that 1 Corinthians 7:11 does not support Jack’s proposition. Your real hang-up, in rejecting his teachings and accepting the truth, may well be that you cannot see how Jesus’ teaching could be anything other than what Jack has told you, which is probably what you have heard all your life.
Since many are inclined to interpret Paul’s teachings to harmonize with what they think Jesus taught we need to discuss that matter. It is frequently noted that Paul referred to Jesus’ teachings and it is assumed and asserted, by my opponent and many other brethren, that those teachings were what is found in the gospels. Let us take a look at the passages in the text and see if there is ample evidence for the conclusion that Jack has drawn.
1Cor. 7:10 – “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord…”
What Paul meant here was that the commands were not of his own authority. His commands were the Lord’s commands dictated (inspired) by His spirit.
Gil – “yet not I, but the Lord; not as if he took upon him the dominion over them, to make laws for them, and, in an imperious authoritative way, oblige them to obedience to them; no; what he was about to deliver, was not a law of his own enacting and obtruding, but what their Lord, their Creator, head, husband, and Redeemer, had ordered and enjoined; and this grave solemn way of speaking he makes use of, to excite their attention, command awe and reverence, make the greater impression upon their minds, and show the obligation they were under to regard what was said;”
Brethren, to conclude from verse 10 that Paul alluded to Matt 19:9; 5:32 is pure speculation. Perhaps Jesus taught the apostles privately on these matters, but that is not certain. We do know that the directions for the church were given by the inspired apostles as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. There simply is no justification for going to Matt 19:9, drawing a conclusion as to its meaning, and then going to the teachings of Paul and forcing his teachings to harmonize with what is supposed that Jesus taught. It is improper hermeneutics. When one learns the truth regarding what Jesus did teach it will be apparent how imprudent it is to do what brethren commonly do, as just discussed.
Jesus responded to a group of Pharisees who were looking to entrap Him in his words so they could have some justification for killing him. They failed to get Jesus to contradict Moses (Deut. 24:1-4) and they knew they failed. Thus, they trumped up FALSE charges to present at his trial.
Matt. 19:9 – “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Where in the above passage (KJV) do you see the word divorce? I see “put away” but divorce is not there. [However, there are people who think it means divorce and have used their power (money) to develop translations that support their thinking.] Dear reader, “put away” does not mean “divorce” in our language. The word divorce implies a legal document that has been presented to the spouse being divorced and it is for the benefit of the spouse that gets it so that the public can know that these persons are no longer bound to each other.
In case you did not know it, the Jewish men were allowed more than one spouse. It was “suffered.” Nothing was done about it. Thus, a man could just discard a wife by “send her away” (“putting away”) yet still have another woman or women. He committed adultery (covenant breaking) when he did it, but that type of adultery did not result in the punishment of death, at least for the men, obviously. I believe what the men were doing was a fairly common practice and that it was the reason for the command (Mark 10:3) to give the “bill of divorcement.” Another evidence for the probability of such happening was that a man would have to pay back the dowry he received from her parents if he divorced her. But if he just “sent her away” (“put away”) he could avoid having to do that, and so we have motivation to do the thing God hates.
Now, I’m not the only one in the world that believes this way. Not many days pass that I do not learn of someone else that has come to the same conclusion, often on their own, that I have come to regarding Moses’, Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings (as pertaining to MDR), which, by the way, are harmonious.
Mike Willis, a conservative preacher and long time editor of Truth Magazine (now Guardian of Truth), gave the following exegesis of Deut 24:1-4:
“A reading of this passage demonstrates that Moses was trying to legislate in such a way as to aid the woman because of the manner in which man was abusing her. According to what I can understand was happening in the days of Moses, a man would put away his wife without any concern for her future. She would not be free to go out and marry another man and yet she could not live with her husband. This left her in destitute circumstances quite frequently. Hence, what Moses was trying to legislate was something that would aid women who had been put away by their husbands.
“The Mosaical legislation said that if a man was going to put away his wife, he had to give her a bill of divorcement that showed that she was free from him and had the opportunity to remarry. Hence, it was designed to protect the women from the harsh treatment husbands were giving to them. "
WILLIS, MIKE. DAYTON, OHIO: TRUTH MAGAZINE XXIV: 14. PP. 227-230. APRIL 3, 1980.
[In discussion with brethren on a certain list regarding my stating that the Jewish men were “putting away” their wives and not divorcing them (as per Deut 24:1-4), the reply was that what I said was untrue. It was truly amazing how they took up for the Jews. In doing some Internet surfing I ran across an article, “Jewish Women in Chains,” that indicates that what I was teaching is still being practiced today. I went through the article again and highlighted several points that were interesting and enlightening. However, I noticed that almost all of it was highlighted so I removed the highlights.
Please read it carefully.
The URL for the article is below:
http://www.ujafederation.org/content_display.html?articleID=9301“Jewish divorce, like any other, can be simple or complicated; a release or a tragedy; straightforward or a swindle. It can set people free to resume or reinvent their lives, or it can embroil individuals and families in a never-ending cycle of abuse. The intent of rabbinic Judaism was to ensure a tolerable disengagement. Regrettably, the current implementation of the halakhic (Jewish legal) system does not meet that minimal standard.
“Many individuals, women and men, rabbis and volunteers, have labored to maintain a fair practice. And in some cases it does work.
“However, the biblical account of divorce found in Deuteronomy, while accepting marital breakups, establishes a procedure that is at the heart of the problem. "When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it comes to pass that she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemliness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." (Deuteronomy. 24: 1-2) Clearly, the man is the initiator, the actor. And while rabbinic law established that there need be no grounds for divorce other than mutual consent, it enforced the structured order of the verse: the male is the active legal principle. He must initiate, author, and give the document to her. She receives it and only then is free to resume control.
“While in most cases Judaism's tolerant acceptance of divorce enables a decent split, in too many situations this male prerogative becomes the means for extortion, vengeance and affliction--certainly not a biblical ideal. Thus, although her consent to the divorce is necessary, the woman is still at the mercy of the man. In the course of the development of Jewish law, many improvements have been incorporated into the system in an attempt to limit the man's unilateral power and prevent the misery. The rabbis were aware of and sensitive to women's vulnerability. But... A Jewish divorce requires a get, a document that a man freely gives to his wife and she must voluntarily accept. Without this document neither partner may remarry according to Jewish law. Today, this affects Conservative, Orthodox and all Israeli Jews. The Reform movement often relies on local civil divorce courts and the Conservative movement has empowered its central court to intervene and act unilaterally to effect a divorce when there are insurmountable problems.
“But throughout Israel and in the Orthodox community outside of Israel, the pattern of insisting on the biblical directive has left too many women agunot. An agunah is a woman who cannot remarry because her husband is unable or unwilling to give her a get. The term literally means "anchored" or "tied down" and is first found in verb form in the biblical story of Ruth (1:13). The original talmudic use of the word was limited to cases in which the man had disappeared and literally could not act as a legal instrument in the Jewish divorce proceedings. Recently, popular usage has expanded the term to apply to all cases of women who are unable to remarry because their husbands will not acquiesce and give the divorce document.
“The problems for women within this system are obvious. Procedurally dependent on her husband and on a rabbinic court, her future children also become pawns in this tug of war. If a woman without a get gives birth, her newborn children will be considered the product of an adulterous union and hence be categorized as mamzerim, Jews who are not allowed to marry other Jews. There is no remedy. To be sure, both a man and a woman can be found guilty of adultery, but the category depends on the marital status of the woman only. The applicable result is that the woman suffers the most from an incomplete divorce: not only from the possible consequences for future children, but in being chained to a marriage that has for all intents and purposes ended.
“The irony is that if the Jewish process of divorce was established to set one free, even to encourage remarriage, the current reality is one in which the process itself has created a group of people who are not free. And the numbers and problems are increasing--but the numerical dimensions of this issue should not become the primary consideration. Our social activism should not become a matter of counting heads. Where there is injustice, we are commanded to pursue justice. I personally know many silenced women suffering the fate of an anchored life. Their stories, not their numbers, are our call to action.
“For Jewish society today, for all of us, divorce constitutes a major moral problem. Not because of the increase in numbers or because of the guilt of either party, but because of the inequities of the process and the indifference of the larger community. People no longer married, no longer living together, are still tied to each other. Bound together and abandoned. The credibility, viability, and continuity of Judaism are on the line.
“The proliferation of unsettled cases has convinced many individuals and organizations to come forward. There are solutions and vehicles for action. Social awareness and education are the first steps. In the necessarily incomplete list that follows, there are numerous groups and resources available. Some organizations have taken on the task of working with individual cases, others have promoted educational formats. Working within both the secular and Jewish systems, activists have initiated both civil and halakhic remedies.”
The Exception Clause
The exception clause, found in verse 9, has been the root of more controversy than perhaps any other biblical text. The misunderstanding of the “exception clause” has resulted in brethren over the years assuming that Jesus was teaching that “divorced” persons commit adultery when they marry. The passage, properly translated, certainly does not say what is assumed and treated as factual. Now, we can all agree that a person who has been merely “put away” cannot marry and would commit adultery if he or she does so.
We also agree that one who marries one that was “put away” would commit adultery. That is what the text says and that conclusion is supported by sound hermeneutical principles. (Thus, it is important that we focus on the meaning of APOLUO from which is derived the phrase “put away.”) But my opponent affirms that Jesus teaches that people who are divorced commit adultery when they marry, although such was not part of the proposition to which we agreed. Nevertheless, I knew we would get to this because I knew Jack would not be satisfied with his efforts if he stayed with the text of the proposition. He could only have been satisfied if his proof text (verse 11) actually taught what he says it does.
Now back to the “exception clause.”
Paraphrase of verse 9:
Whoever shall send his wife out of the house and marry another, commits adultery, unless he sent her away because of “fornication,” which is being committed because of the illicit relationship.
The above must be the meaning because the Mosaic text (which was the basis for the discussion) was needed (and therefore written) because of the treacherous practice of Jewish men who were sending their wives away without completely freeing them from the marriage so they could marry another. Indeed, Moses commanded a prescribed course of action to be taken, which included the bill of divorcement. Jack and those who hold his position cannot deal with the fact that Deut. 24:1-4 was a command to fix a problem. Jesus certainly did not say, “Don’t divorce any more because from now own it will be adultery.” His concern was with the problem that resulted in the command in the first place. By the way, I do not think my opponent believes Moses authorized divorce at all. I agree that he certainly did not authorize mistreatment of women (treachery, Mal 2:14-16), which would be the case whether a man merely “put away” or actually divorced his faithful wife, but he DID give the command (Mark 10:3) and there was obviously more to it than the idea of “putting away” or sending out of the house in the case where the husband was determined to end a relationship with a wife. I maintain that until one does what Moses commanded, any couple is still married, thus they would commit adultery in marrying another. Jack, do you agree?
In the context of Matt. 19:9, it appears that the Pharisee’s first question directed to Jesus was about "putting away," with no implication of thoughts of actually ending a dead marriage in a legal and scriptural way. But, when the command of Moses is mentioned they answer with both "put away" and "bill of divorcement."
It seems plausible that Jesus went back to their original question about "putting away" without the “bill of divorcement” and that He made His succeeding comments with such in mind.
Since my opponent will certainly ask for evidence that APOLUO means “put away” and that “put away” does not mean divorce I shall just go ahead and present it now so he can respond to it, if he likes. He can then concentrate on attacking the sources, or my use of them, which will leave me to deal with that in my next reply, if I choose to reply.
Let us now look at some evidences in favor of the idea that “put away” does not equal divorce, but amounted to separation. We shall also discuss some passages that indicate there is a difference in separation and divorce and we shall see that separation was all that was required in the case where the relationship was not a legal/scriptural covenant.
Ezr 10:11 - Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.
There was no command to divorce those women. Why?
They were not legal marriages. The relationships were not pleasing to God and simply needed to be ended.
Authorities on the meaning of the English words "PUT AWAY":
Some English dictionaries do not even include divorce as a definition of “put away” including those noted below:
Wordnet Dictionary:
“Put Away” Definition:
1. [v] turn away from and put aside, perhaps temporarily; “She turned away from her painting” [v] eat up; usually refers to a considerable quantity of food; “My son tucked in a whole pizza” 3. [v] kill gently, as with an injection, as of pet animals 4. [v] place in a place where something cannot be removed or someone cannot escape; “The parents locked her daughter for the weekend”; “She locked her jewels in the safe” 5. [v] throw or cast away; “Put away your worries” 6. [v] lock up or confine, in or as in a jail; “The suspects were imprisoned without trial”; “the murderer was incarcerated for the rest of his life”
Synonyms include: cast aside, cast away, cast out, discard, dispose, throw away, throw out
The Collins English Dictionary © 2000 HarperCollins Publishers:
“Put Away”
verb[transitive, adverb(ial)]
1. to return (something) to the correct or proper place
example: he put away his books
2. save, example: to put away money for the future
3. to lock up in a prison, mental institution, etc.
example: they put him away for twenty years
4. to eat or drink, esp. in large amounts
5. to put to death, because of old age or illness
example: the dog had to be put away
There was NO MENTION of divorce anywhere in the definition of “put away.”
Why is this significant? Because apoluo is properly translated, “put away” and “put away,” in our language does not mean divorce. In the O.T. there were three parts to a divorce, and it is the same today. You file for divorce, and when the papers are completed you present them to your spouse. Then you put her away or send her out of the house. (Of course, in our day the woman usually gets the house and the man leaves.)
Authorities on the meaning of Divorce:
“Apostasion,” properly translated “divorce” or “divorcement.”
[Grk. 647] apostasion (ap-os-tas’-ee-on) “neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of 868; properly, something separative, i.e. (specially) divorce:--(writing of) divorcement” (Strong's).
Smith’s Bible Dictionary defines divorce as: “A legal dissolution of the marriage relation.”
What about the fact that some versions of the N.T. translate apoluo as divorce?
It is true that several translations have translated apoluo as divorce in Matt 5:32, etc. However, as far as I have been able to find out, the KJV was the first to translate apoluo as divorce and it was certainly inconsistent in so doing. Of the 11 times Jesus used the word apoluo the KJV rendered it “put away” (or something similar) every time except in one case – Matt. 5:32. There is no apparent reason for the inconsistency. (And consistency is important in translating.) Previous to the KJV was the Wyclilff version: Mark 10:11 - “Whosoever putteth awaye his wyfe and maryeth another, breaketh wedlock to herward. And if a woman forsake her husband and be maryed to another, she committeth advoutry also.”
A margin note in The Geneva Bible translated from the Textus Receptus in 1560 (about 50 years before the KJV) concerning the term put away said, “that is, was not lawfully divorced.” Why is this worthy of note? It gives support to the idea that Jesus was talking about men merely putting away their wives and NOT divorcing them lawfully.
Greek/English Interlinear (tr){BUT I} legw [3004] (5719) {SAY} umin [5213] {TO YOU} oti [3754] {THAT} oV [3739] an [302] {WHOEVER} apolush [630 (5661) thn [3588] {SHALL PUT AWAY} gunaika [1135] autou [846] {HIS WIFE,} parektoV [3924] {EXCEPT} logou [3056] {ON ACCOUNT} porneiaV [4202] {OF FORNICATION,} poiei [4160] (5719) {CAUSES} authn [846] {HER} moicasqai [3429] (5738) {TO COMMIT ADULTERY;} kai [2532] {AND} oV [3739] ean [1437] {WHOEVER} apolelumenhn [630] (5772) {HER WHO HAS BEEN PUT AWAY} gamhsh [1060] (5661) {SHALL MARRY,} moicatai [3429] (5736) {COMMITS ADULTERY.}
The ASV is widely respected as being the most literal and accurate version. It consistently renders apoluo as “put away” (or something similar) in the passages relative to our study, but never does it render it as divorce. Had the ASV scholars understood apoluo to mean divorce they would have so translated it. What appears to have happened is that the KJV erred by translating apoluo as divorce in one instance, which was probably due to Papal influence. Then by the time many of the newer versions came along many scholars were indoctrinated in the idea that Jesus meant divorce when he was talking about merely "putting away," and therefore their biases were reflected in their work. Considering that the KJV has been so respected and widely used there is no wonder that many were influenced by it. In view of the fact that virtually all our lexicographers were influenced by Catholicism it should not be surprising that many put divorce somewhere down in the meaning of APOLUO. The fact that it is not the first definition is revealing and significant. Perhaps the only reason it is mentioned at all is because they have concluded that Joseph and Mary were actually married when Joseph was considering putting her away privately. Thus, they errantly concluded from the context that divorce was the proper rendering of the word in that instance.
Let us take a close look at Mark 10:2-5:
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
First, the Pharisees asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife. Jesus responded by asking them what Moses commanded. They replied that Moses allowed them to write a “bill of divorce” and to “put away.” But Jesus responded that it was a “precept” or command, and that the giving of it was because of their hardness of heart.
Observations:
If put away means the same as divorce or is used interchangeably, then God’s word is redundant and makes no sense. Such thinking has the conversants saying: (vs 4): Moses suffered you to divorce your wives and to divorce them. Thus, it is quite obvious that there is something wrong with my opponent’s position. It simply will not hold water.
Support from Bible Versions:
There is no stronger evidence of a proper translation of a word than what is rendered by respected translators. The ASV is indisputably the most respected for accuracy and reliability. Also, a few of the other versions noted below are highly respected and quoted from often. It is primarily the new versions, many of which are known for unfaithfulness to the original language, that in some instances render apoluo (and some other words, besides apostasion) as divorce in at least some passages.
Below are some versions that are consistent in NOT translating apoluo as divorce: Mat 5:32:
(ASV) but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is PUT AWAY committeth adultery.
(Bible in Basic English) But I say to you that everyone who puts away his wife for any other cause but the loss of her virtue, makes her false to her husband; and whoever takes her as his wife after she is PUT AWAY, is no true husband to her.
(Darby) But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and whosoever marries one that is PUT AWAY commits adultery.
(DRB) But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is PUT AWAY, committeth adultery.
(LITV) But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one PUT AWAY commits adultery.
(MKJV) But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is PUT AWAY commits adultery.
(Worldwide English) But I tell you, no man may send away his wife unless she has committed adultery. If he does send her away, he is making her commit adultery. And if a man marries a woman who has been sent away from her husband, he commits adultery.
(World English Bible) But I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery.
(WYC) But I say to you, that every man that leaveth his wife [that every man that shall leave his wife], except (for) [the] cause of fornication, maketh her to do lechery, and he that weddeth the forsaken wife, doeth adultery.
(Youngs Literal Translation) But I—I say to you, that whoever may PUT AWAY his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been PUT AWAY doth commit adultery.
A closer look at Ezr 10:11:
Ezr 10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.
The word translated “separate” is: [Heb. 914] badal(baw-dal') a primitive root; to divide (in variation senses literally or figuratively, separate, distinguish, differ, select, etc.):-- (make, put) difference, divide (asunder), (make) separate (self, -ation), sever (out), X utterly. (Strong's)
There was no command to divorce those women. Why?
They were not legal marriages. The relationships were not pleasing to God and simply needed to be ended by permanent separation.
Question: Jack, if a judge performs the marriage ceremony for two men do they need to get a divorce, should they repent, if the State Supreme Court later says the marriage was not legal?
What is significant about the observation that "put away," as used by Jesus, amounts to separation? The "exception clause," found in Matt 19:9, is made to be the core of the teaching that so divides brethren on the divorce and remarriage issue. It is asserted that one who is divorced cannot marry unless he did the divorcing and did it because the spouse committed adultery. That is not what the passage says. Jesus said if one PUTS AWAY his wife and marries another he commits adultery, unless the wife was put away BECAUSE OF FORNICATION. This does not mean that the spouse committed fornication, which either broke the marriage bond or allowed the "innocent" one to so do. It simply had reference to the RELATIONSHIP - it was not a legal marriage. If a man found that he had married someone who was already married, or who was close kin (incest), he would not need to do anything but "put away," which amounted to separation.
The translators of the New Jerusalem Bible were on the right track in their understanding of the exception clause (unfortunately they rendered APOLUO as divorce). They translated the passage as follows:
“But I say this to you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the case of an illicit marriage, makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Mt 5:32).
The only instances in the New Testament where action was required in a case involving a marriage was where the marriage was not proper according to the Law, i.e., it was an “illicit marriage.” One such case was Herod's marriage to his brother's wife (Mark 6:18; Lev 20:21). Another case was the man who “had his father's wife” (1Cor. 5. See Clark).
Illustration:
Consider that some men (or women) just put their spouse out of the house with the intention of being permanently separated, and do not bother with a divorce. It could be they do it because they have no intention of marrying another because of indifference, or for various other reasons.
Also, some actually “divorce” but do not “put away” and the motive may be to avoid paying taxes. John and Shay marry. John finds another woman. John “puts away” Shay. He says to her, “Take your stuff and get out of the house. You are free from me. I’m marring another woman.” What happens when he does marry this other woman? Obviously, he commits adultery (Matt 19:9). Why would he be committing adultery? It would be adultery because he was still legally and scripturally married to Shay.
What would be the situation for the woman? Well, she would be on her own and could not marry according to the law of the land and the Law of God. Why? It would be because she would commit adultery if she did, since she was still legally married. What is her solution to the problem? Get a legal and proper divorce, if possible.
The above is clearly the type scenario that was addressed by Moses as found in Deut 24:1-4, which is the very passage the Pharisees alluded to in their effort to entrap Jesus.
Isa 50:1 – “Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.”
This passage is very important because it emphasizes the importance of the “bill of divorcement” and teaches us that until there is an actual legal divorce (with the papers) the marriage is still intact and there may still be hope for reconciliation. It also clearly illustrates that “put away” does not mean “divorce.”
Evidently God did not deal treacherously with Israel by simply putting her away and leaving it at that. There was a “separation” but no divorce at this point, as was evidently the case in the following passage, which we have already briefly noted:
Mal 2:14, 15 “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.”
The above passage is about abuse of a wife (treachery), probably by her having been "put away," and the passage states that the covenant is yet intact. Such would be the case because "put away" is not divorce, and a marriage covenant is not ended by merely "putting away." Marriages were ended only by both "divorcing" and "putting away" (Deut. 24:1-4). The word translated “divorcement” (in Isa 50:1) is “kariythuwth,” which STRONG defines as: “divorce, dismissal, divorcement”.
JFB – “HORSLEY best explains (as the antithesis between ‘I’ and ‘yourselves’ shows, though LOWTH translates, ‘Ye are sold’) I have never given your mother a regular bill of divorcement; I have merely ‘put her away’ for a time, and can, therefore, by right as her husband still take her back on her submission; I have not made you, the children, over to any ‘creditor’ to satisfy a debt; I therefore still have the right of a father over you, and can take you back on repentance, though as rebellious children you have sold yourselves to sin and its penalty (1Ki 21:25 ).”
The explanation (above) of the text (regarding “put away”) is consistent with Deut 24:1-4, Matt 19:9; and 1 Cor. 7:10-12. The phrase “Put away” did not mean “divorce.” It meant or was equal to “separation.”
Why is Deut 24:1-4 important to this debate?
The order of the command of Moses was: 1) write the bill of divorce; 2) put it into her hand; and 3) “send her away” (shalach). That there are three separate commands involved in the divorce is evident. The Hebrew word "Shalach" is translated "send her away" and is equivalent to the Greek word APOLUO, which means "put away." It is important to note that STRONG nowhere mentions divorce in his definition of “shalach,” as found in the text. This should not be surprising because in the passages where “shalach” is used it is understood from the context to be something different from divorce, where papers were issued. It is very significant that Jesus dealt with the very same matter in His discourse with the Pharisees (Matt 19). Thus, it is prudent to conclude that where Jesus used the word “apoluo” in his response to the Pharisees, in reference to the Deut 24:1-4 scenario, it should NOT be translated “divorce.” Furthermore, there is no reason for any “authority” to have included “divorce” as part of the definition of “apoluo,” as used in Matt 19:9. In fact, there are various reasons apoluo should not be translated divorce at all. It would result in redundancy. There is another word (Apostasion) in the same context that is used to refer to divorce, and is universally translated as divorce. The Greek word “apostasion” is translated “divorcement” and is found 3 times in the KJV - all are in the gospels and legal divorce is the implication. [Mt5:31; Mt19:7; Mr10:4]
(Ezra 10:19) “And they gave their promise that they would put away (yatsa’ H3318) their wives; and being guilty, they presented a ram of the flock as their trespass offering.” NKJV
It is worthy of note that in the text there was no indication that the priests did anything other than “put away” or separate from their foreign wives according to the will of God. They did not need to actually divorce them because these were women that they should never have married–women whom God had said they could not marry. Thus, they were committing sin in living with these women. The fact that they did not formally divorce their wives is in perfect harmony with Jesus’ “exception” – “except for fornication”, i.e., the “putting away,” and marrying another would not result in adultery being committed.
(Jeremiah 3:1) “They say, ‘If a man put away (shalach H7971) his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me,’ saith the LORD.”
In the above passage, the word “They” was doubtless a reference to the Jews who had come to misunderstand and misuse Deut 24-1-4. (This will become evident when you understand the message of the text.) According to the text the husband was forbidden to take back a wife to whom he had actually given a “bill of divorce” if she had married another. He was not forbidden to take back a woman whom he had “put away” or merely sent out of the house, as we have seen from Isaiah 50:1, though it seems apparent from the text (Jer 3:1) that such had become the thinking of the people. God said, “Regardless of your erroneous thinking I will take you back.” He was saying, “We have been separated and you have played the harlot, nevertheless, I will take you back.” If they had been divorced and married another He would not have considered taking her back.
Was God asserting that he would do something that was against the Law, and therefore would mess up the paradigm he had given?
(Jeremiah 3:8 ) “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away (shalach H7971), and given her a bill of divorce (keriythuwth H3748); yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.”
After alluding to the fact that he had been previously dispatched to plead for Israel’s return during the separation, Jeremiah stated that God had “given her [Israel] a bill or certificate of divorce,” thus dissolving the marriage and relieving God of any responsibility to Israel as his “chosen” or as his “wife” whom He had married (Jer3:14). In verse 14 we see where the Lord had told Jeremiah to plead with his “back sliding” “wife” to return and he would take her back. If we go back and consider verse 12 there should be no doubt that Jeremiah was talking about what he had been told to say BEFORE the divorce had actually been given.
Note how some would interpret Jer.3:8:
“And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had DIVORCED HER (put her away), and DIVORCED HER (given her a bill of Divorce); yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also” (Jer 3:8).
In the above passage some emphatically argue that "put away" means divorce. But if their assertion were true then consider how ridiculous the passage would read. They have God saying: I DIVORCED HER AND I DIVORCED HER. Nevertheless, the fact that God did two separate things (described with different words) to Israel is positive proof that the sending away is not the divorce. As previously discussed, the divorce involved three parts. One can put away and not divorce and one can divorce and not put away.
(Ezekiel 44:22) “Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away (garash H1644): but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.” The NKJV says, “driven out” instead of “put away.”
The command to the priests restricted them to marrying a virgin or a widow of another priest. If the priests had obeyed the command it would have assured that the priests did not marry one who could possibly be still married to another. The above passage may be an indication that there were misunderstandings among the Jews regarding what was an acceptable divorce. Marrying a virgin or the widow of another priest assured that the woman had no legal ties to another, and when you consider what their responsibilities were, it is understandable that God would require such of these men.
Words sometimes only partially communicate and leave room for speculation, theory and conjecture.
Example:
I met an old friend a few months ago that I had not seen in over 20 years. I knew she had married a doctor but did not know anything about him. She said to me, “I had to get rid of him.”
Now, “get rid of” could be interpreted in various ways. It could mean she divorced him or it could mean she just told him IT IS OVER–we are THROUGH, and moved out, or sent him out; or she could have killed him. If she had wanted to clearly communicate the idea that she had divorced her husband she could certainly have used the word “divorced,” or even said, “I gave him his walking papers,” but since she did not I cannot be absolutely certain what she meant. There is a remote possibility that the man she married was already married when he married her or that he was a first cousin, both of which would have made the marriage illegal. Thus, in such case she would not have needed to do anything more than “put him away,” which was to end the relationship by permanent separation.
Was God not being clear when He inspired writers to use certain words that mean “put away, “send away,” etc.? Did He want us to conclude that they had, in every case, actually divorced their wife? Some may have incorrectly used the same native language to mean “divorce,” but that is not what God said. When God gave important legislation regarding divorce he made it clear. In both the Old Testament (Deut 24:1-4) and the New Testament (Matt 19:7-9) there is the allusion to actual papers (“bill of divorce”) when divorce is under consideration. But of course when God said “he may not put her away all his days” (Deut. 22:29) common sense dictates that the command disallowed a divorce because “putting away” was involved in “divorce.” It just makes sense that if you are told to not “put away” you are being told you cannot divorce, although they are not the same thing. Nevertheless, some preachers are deliberately using the words "put away" in their teachings when they mean "divorce." Why, because that is what they need it to mean for their position to have the appearance of a scriptural foundation. When they need to know about someone's "eligibility" do they ask, "Have you been put away?" Of course they do not. They ask, "Have you been divorced?"
If in the above example my friend had said, “I divorced him,” or I gave him his “walking papers,” then I would have understood for certain that an actual divorce had taken place. As she worded it, all I knew for certain was that they were separated and did not have a good relationship.
The practice of requiring celibacy is something that is contrary to the very reason given for marriage (1Cor. 7:2). My opponent has admitted that divorced persons are unmarried, but he holds the absurd position that they are nevertheless still bound. It does not matter how many people agree with and give their support to Jack, that position is still absurd. The absurdity of this is seen when a person who is innocent of marital sin is divorced and the guilty one marries another. If my opponent lived in a Jewish community he surely would see the need to be battling against mistreatment of wives (treachery) - putting way and marrying another where there has been no divorce. But we do not have that exact problem here, thus when Jesus’ teachings are explained many don’t believe the problem ever existed. So they hang onto the idea that Jesus simply changed the Law regarding divorce and continue to deny Paul’s plain words as they twist them to make him teach that divorced persons are still bound. Jack has yet to provide sufficient evidence that divorced persons are still bound.
Divorce is not specifically and clearly authorized in the New Testament, but because marriage is dissolvable (contrary to Catholic decree), if done legally, those who have been through an unfortunate marriage and divorce are not still bound to a previous relationship. Marriage and divorce is not a law of the church, therefore it is not regulated by the church. Nevertheless, there are certain principles taught in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that faithful men must follow, to include obeying the marriage laws of the land.
When a divorce takes place, one or both parties may have been guilty of sin, but the sin(s) may be forgiven (1 Cor. 6:11). The last thing a divorced person needs is to be placed in a position that makes his/her endeavor to live the Christian life even more difficult (1 Cor. 7:2).
In reading the works of Josephus, I was unable to find where he made any mention of Jesus’ teaching, or being charged with teaching, that certain marriages must be dissolved or that certain people had no right to a marriage. According to Josephus’ understanding, the only restriction…was that they be “at the age fit for it.” This is consistent with the apostle Paul’s teachings in 1 Cor 7:36: “But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.” The male is to be a “man” and the female must have “reached the flower of her age.”
Any other restrictions placed upon people are man-made and not of the gospel of Christ (Gal 1:8, 9).In our language “put away” is NOT the same as divorce. We do not talk like that. Only men who need APOLUO (put away) to mean divorce, to justify their teaching and practice, talk like that in their writings. As a child did you ever play the game where you say the opposite of what you mean? If you say something wrong long enough you are going to get confused and the people that hear you are going to get confused. Eventually, the word will take on a new meaning. Therefore, we should just listen to the most credible translators - those whose work resulted in the ASV.
Paul uses “depart” in 1 Cor 7:11, which is from “chorizo” which most scholars agree means separate. If she departs the logical result is that she is then SEPARATE from her husband.
Some are still clinging to the argument that only God joins and only God can unjoin. God “joins” people who marry, but when a couple marries they had a part in that decision. God would not have joined them if they had not determined to marry. If this same couple determine to divorce it is their decision and there is no scripture that indicates that God does not recognize it. Thus, recognizing that the divorced are indeed “loosed,” the passages in the New Testament that allow marriage are to be applied to those who are divorced. To fail to obey is to be guilty of teaching “doctrines of devils” by “forbidding to marry.” Jack does not think this passage is applicable because he does not think he forbids to marry. Well, I do not think Jesus’ teachings are applicable to our discussion because I believe he was discussing a problem mostly unique to the Jews. Nevertheless, I shall accept what Jesus said when properly translated, and I have provided more than enough evidence to support that “put away” is an acceptable rendering of APOLUO rather then rendering it as divorce.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (NASB), Jack stated, “The text is too clear to be misunderstood by an unbiased reading. Regarding the subject we are discussing, it tells divorced people to ‘remain unmarried, or else be reconciled’.” This being the case, Brother Waters is not justified when he goes to other portions of 1 Corinthians 7 and attempts to apply them to divorced people and teach that they are “unbound” and free to marry.
Robert:
It is strange, that Jack thinks I’m not justified in using other teachings to show he has misconstrued verse 11, but he would surely tell a Baptist preacher, who uses John 3:16 to teach salvation by faith only, that he should consider other passages and listen to scholars regarding the meaning of the pertinent words.
Jack continues:
I will pause here and answer what is an obvious question. What happens if a divorced person ignores the teaching of these verses and marries another?
Robert:
No one should ignore anything that is in God’s word. What my friend needs to be concerned with is what will happen to those who ignore God’s command to “let them marry?” Furthermore, what will happen to those who twist Paul’s clear teachings to mean “let only those you assume, due to your misunderstand of scripture, to be ‘unbound’ marry. One should also be concerned with what will happen to those who assert that an unmarried person can be bound to anyone in a marriage relationship, which is in essence forbidding that person to have a marriage. The action is simply a flagrant violation of verse 2, verse 7- 8 and verse 27-28.
Jack wrote:
The Bible speaks plainly on this subject. In Mark 10:11, 12, Jesus said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery,” (Mark 10:11-12 NASB). This text makes it very plain that those who disobey Paul’s instructions to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled” sin when they enter a marriage to another, and that the sin they commit is adultery in the second marriage. As long as that marriage is maintained and their former mate is living they commit adultery with their second spouse. It also explains why Paul says his teaching here is not his, but the Lord’s.
Robert:
First, Jack has to use one of the new versions before his proof text can be of any help to him. If you are determined to believe that the version he used has properly translated apoluo, aphiemi and chorizo then none of the evidence I have shown to the contrary will have any affect.
I have already explained Jesus’ teaching; therefore there is no need to do so again.
Paul’s teaching was definitely from God, but Jack’s teaching is not. Jack uses circular reasoning to convince you that Paul taught a certain thing based upon another assumption that is not proven.
Jack:
There is an exception to this general rule. In Matthew 19:9 Jesus said, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,” (Matthew 19:9 NASB). The force of the exception clause is that the person who divorces their mate for sexual immorality may marry another without committing adultery. The mate they put away, however, continues to be covered under Mark 10:11, 12, and would commit adultery if they should marry another as long as the first spouse lives.
Robert:
I have already shown what the scriptures teach regarding the exception clause. I also showed the fallacies of Jack’s position in that he is not willing to accept what the passage says regarding “immorality,” which is inconsistent with what he says is the only acceptable reason for a divorce. He says it is adultery. We shall see how he responds to the questions I have asked on this matter.
Jack:
In 1 Corinthians 7:12 Paul begins that verse by saying, “But to the rest I say…” Brother Waters would do well to heed that statement. Paul has already stated God’s will on marriage and divorce, and any interpretation of the passages that precede or follow which contradicts the teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, is an erroneous interpretation.
Robert:
None of Paul’s teachings contradict the teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11. However, Jack’s interpretation of this passage does contradict teachings of Paul in several places.
Jack:
I believe that in order to understand the issues before us, and some of the other issues before brethren today on this subject, that we must understand what a marriage is, what a divorce is, and what it means to be “bound” in the sight of God to another.
Robert:
Indeed, it would be very helpful for my opponent, in his effort to prove his proposition, that he clearly show how a divorced person can be still bound. It is very clear to me that his idea is based upon nothing but supposition as to what two passages teach. I have already shown what those passages do teach.
Jack:
The Bible teaches that marriage is a covenant relationship (see Malachi 2:14). A covenant consist of three things—terms, promises to keep the terms, and ratification. The apostle Paul, in Galatians 3:15 says, “Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it,” (Galatians 3:15 NASB).
Robert:
Jack must be rather desperate for biblical support to have used the above passage. Johnson, who held the “traditional” view on MDR, did not gather anything from the text that would support Jack’s proposition. He said, “Though it be but a man's covenant, etc. A covenant, or agreement, among men, after it is ratified, cannot be annulled or altered without the consent of both parties.”
How true! If the text taught what Jack hopes that you will believe it would forbid all divorces; thus Jack’s “one exception theory” would be out the door. What proves too much proves nothing.
Jack:
What a lot of people do not understand is that two are joined by more than their marriage covenant. Beyond the marriage covenant the Bible teaches that when two marry lawfully according to divine law they are “bound” by God. The word “bound” simply means “to be under obligation.” When two marry they are under many obligations from God. For example, the Bible commands the wife to submit to her husband, and it commands the husband to love his wife.
Robert:
The marriage covenant is basically the same as any other covenant that a man makes with another. God recognizes these covenants, but that does not mean the covenants cannot be dissolved by the person who agreed to make them. For example, suppose Jack and I make a covenant to debate three different propositions every year for 10 years. But then one of us has some mishap that disables and therefore we agree to dissolve the covenant. Did we sin? Obviously not, but according to Jack’s reasoning, in trying to prove his proposition, a covenant cannot be dissolved. And, again, there is that “exception” that keeps causing conundrums for him. A covenant obviously can be dissolved, but my opponent is wrong about what it takes for such dissolution. His position that maintains that one is not free after a divorce can only be true if Jesus taught contrary to the Law. I have thoroughly explained the exception, which was more applicable to Jews than any later because of their Law against marrying people who were not of the house of Israel.
Jack:
In Romans 7:2, 3, the Bible says, “For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man,” (Romans 7:2-3 NASB). This passage clearly teaches that when two marry they are bound (under obligation) to each other as long as they live. Hence, should they divorce and one go out and marry another, they commit adultery in that second marriage.
Robert:
Once again, the exception that Jack’s version calls “immorality” makes all he said above worthless in helping him prove his proposition. I have heard numerous people who believe the “traditional” (unscriptural) position say Paul is not even talking about divorce in the text above. And, I find it interesting that brethren who misuse this text always omit the next verse.
“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”
The context often sheds light on the meaning of a passage, but Jack conveniently ignored the passage that ties it all together. Paul obviously did not contradict himself in verse 2-3, i.e., he did not teach contrary to his plain teachings to the Corinthians. Nevertheless, he did use a metaphor, so let us seek to properly understand it.
A woman was indeed bound by the Law to her husband for as long as he lived. If he dies she is obviously free. That is as far as we can logically take this matter. Divorce was not addressed. Of course if she marries another man while he is living she shall be called an adulterous. But there is no indication in the text that she commits adultery if there is a divorce first. Jack believes in EXCEPTIONS. Will it work here, Jack, or does it only work where you need it? Unless circular reasoning is an honorable and true hermeneutic Jack’s effort to use this text to support his proposition has failed.
Jack:
Another concept that many do not understand is the concept of divorce. Divorce is the undoing of the marriage covenant. Under the Old Law a divorce took place when a man wrote out a bill of divorcement and gave it to his wife and sent her out of the house. Under modern law, divorce is a legal process. When two go to the court house and get a divorce they move from a married state to an unmarried state—they are divorced. 1 Corinthians 7:11 makes this clear when it says to divorced people that they are to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.”
Robert:
Indeed, divorced people are unmarried. Many, I’m sure, think Jack gave up too much by admitting this fact because Paul says, regarding that class of people, “LET THEM MARRY.”
Question: Why did Moses gave the divorce procedure? Were Moses’ words (Deut. 24:1-4) a command, was he giving permission to divorce or was he just filling extra space for the Bible?
I fail to see that one can have a proper understanding of the nature of divorce by simply understanding what Paul meant in verse 11, especially if one misunderstands it, as does my opponent.
Jack:
All of the talk we hear today from some that people are “divorced in the eyes of the law, but are still married in God’s eyes” is simply a bunch of hogwash. The concept that two can divorce and play some kind of waiting game and later “put away” the other is also a bunch of hogwash. When two people divorce, they are unmarried in God’s eyes, in the civil government’s eyes, and they ought to be unmarried in the eyes of brethren. The issue at that point is, why did they divorce? If they did not divorce because their mate was sexually immoral, then they are obligated to remain unmarried or be reconciled.
Robert:
Yes, brethren seem to be backing away from the “still married in God’s eyes” argument in their effort to explain how one that has been divorced is still married.
Regarding the idea of a “waiting game” and later “putting away” I have no dog in that fight. That fight is among people who do not understand what Jesus said and it is going on because some see the injustice in the man made law that requires celibacy for an innocent person who has been divorced. They are on the wrong track.
Jack:
Having said that, we must recognize that simply because a marriage covenant has been dissolved by divorce this does not mean that all of the obligations the two have towards one another are dissolved. In other words, when two divorce the general rule is that they are still bound (i.e., obligated) to one another. Again, Romans 7:2, 3, makes this clear when it says that they are bound so long as they both live, and that if one so bound should go and marry another they commit adultery. 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, also makes this clear when it tells people who are unmarried by virtue of divorce that they must “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.”
Robert:
There may indeed be some obligations after a divorce, but those obligations would most likely be due to what was determined by the judge in the settlement. Jack asserts that they are still bound. That really is absurd. He says it is a “general rule.” No, it is a “traditional” untrue and unscriptural rule that was made by the devil.
Jack:
We ought not to think it strange that two people can be divorced and yet be bound (i.e., obligated) to one another. Even the civil law recognizes such bonds, and when a man divorces his wife civil law will often obligate him to support her with alimony. The two are divorced, they are unmarried, but they still have obligations to one another.
Robert:
I answered this already above.
Jack:
Now, having established these facts the application to the proposition, I would think, is obvious. Brother Waters has signed a proposition that says that all divorced people are “unbound.” In view of Romans 7:2, 3, and 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, and Mark 10:11, 12, and Matthew 19:9 it should be obvious that Robert is simply wrong about this. Generally speaking divorced people are bound to one another so long as they both live. There is an exception in Matthew 19:9, but beyond that divorced people are bound (i.e., obligated) to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
This being the case, Brother Waters’ proposition is evidently in error.
Robert:
Jack has obviously misused several passages, most outside the scope of the proposition, and has not established the facts that he needs to prove my position to be error or to prove his proposition.
Jack:
I will now move to examine the specific matters Brother Waters has brought to our attention.
I will begin by making a general observation. Brother Waters has done what most false teachers do when they get into a discussion and when they are in the affirmative. Instead of presenting us with a solid affirmative statement of his own views Brother Waters has promptly proceeded to the negative and presented me with some 46 questions concerning my views. I will answer each of the questions, but I will also make a prediction. Every time I try and represent his view he is going to say I have misrepresented him. By not presenting us with a solid affirmative statement he has left that option open to himself. It is a common tool of false teachers, and the reader should simply prepare himself for it.
Robert:
I think the above comments were not productive to anything except maybe to build some prejudice, which, by the way, is something all false teachers exhort to when they are out of soap and desperate for help. (I’m not saying Jack is a “false teacher” but he is teaching error.) I have explained why I asked the questions and I believe they were productive. In this installment I’m sure Jack has been presented with more affirmative arguments than he would care to deal with. I suppose I should have prepared the reader for comments like what we see above. < grin >
Jack:
I will pass reviewing the general comments he made in his opening statement with one exception. While telling us how to study the Bible properly he states, “A correct understanding takes into account the language, the context of the statement and all of the related material in the rest of the Bible.” I am pleased to see he included this common rule of Bible study inasmuch as he initially tried to limit my ability to use any scripture except the scripture that was found in 1 Corinthians 7. It is hard to understand how any Bible student would think such a rule was reasonable. Nevertheless, he agreed to debate, and he agreed that all of the scriptures should be available to use, and for that we are thankful.
Robert:
I wanted to limit the debate to 1 Corinthians 7 for the same reason generals seek to win a war one battle at a time. I would have been just as limited as Jack. Nevertheless, I would have easily won that debate because the truth is clearly seen right there in chapter 7. If Jack was not allowed to bring in some outside scriptures that he knows others are indoctrinated in, according to his thinking, then he would not debate. Jack needs those other passages, as he twists them, to make his contention on 1 Cor. 7:11 to be even a little bit believable.
Jack:
Now, to his questions…
1. Is it possible for a scholar to say something that is reasonable and true yet contradictory to other statements he has made?
Yes.
Robert:
I agree with Jack’s answer. Nevertheless, he has accused me of misrepresenting scholars. Everyone should understand that my quoting what a scholar, who does not see things as I do on MDR, writes on a passage or the meaning of a word, gives no indication that I misrepresented the scholar. Such could only be the case if what I actually quoted did not actually say what I was contending it said. There can be no doubt about what Bloomfield and Robertson said.
2. Is it better to learn the meaning of a passage from a study of the context or is it better to reject the context and accept the conclusion that is made by most scholars?
Jack:
It is better to learn the meaning of a passage from a study of the context, including the statement itself, the immediate context (the material surrounding the statement) and the remote context (other passages in the Bible that speak to the same subject).
Robert:
Good.
3. Is it evident from 1 Corinthians 7:1 that Paul had been asked various questions regarding the same issues that trouble us, which has resulted in the need for this debate?
Jack:
Paul had been asked various questions, but I do not believe they pertained directly to the position Brother Waters is supposed to be affirming. I am not aware of anyone in New Testament times who takes the absurd position that he does on this issue—that all divorced people may marry another.
Robert:
My friend jumped the track on this one. The likely question that was asked, that is pertinent to our discussion, is “Who has a right to a marriage?” Jack can’t admit that that was a likely question because Paul so clearly answered it: those who do not have a marriage.
Jack:
Of course, the reader is only left to guess what that position is from the questions, but let me lay it out for you very clearly. Brother Waters believes that any individual with God’s approval may divorce his wife and marry another. If that is not the force of his proposition, then I am unable to understand a plain English statement.
Robert:
Jack was not left to guess what my position is because he has downloaded everything relating to MDR that is on my web site. If there was something unethical about me asking questions, in addition to my affirmative arguments regarding Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians, I would like to know it.
Jack then makes what might appear to be a misrepresentation of what I believe, but the way it is worded both of us could endorse what he said. He said, “With God’s approval” anyone may divorce. Thus, the divorce would be “scriptural,” wouldn’t it? I’ve already noted a similar quote (and it was repeated several times) where Jack did indeed charge that I believe something that I categorically deny and for which I provided plain scripture to support the denial. We shall see if Jack continues to make the charge or if he will see that it is not fair and true and at least stop it.
4. Is it reasonable to conclude that we should consider the answers Paul gave to the Corinthians to be THE answers for us?
Jack:
Provided we are asking the same questions that the Corinthians asked, yes.
Robert:
My opponent answered yes, but he insists that we go to Jesus’ teachings to help us interpret Paul’s teachings. Paul did not quote Matt. 19:9 in answering their questions. I think we all see now that Paul did indeed provide THE answers for us and that it is improper hermeneutics for one to first draw a conclusion regarding Jesus’ teachings to Jews and then seek to harmonize Paul’s teachings with what He is believed to have taught. Brethren, I truly believe this is what my opponent (and many others) has done.
Jack:
I would say the apostle Paul teaches that every man may have one wife, and every wife one husband. I do not see authority in this passage for any man or woman to “marry another.” In view of 1 Corinthians 10:11, 12, it would be improper to apply this passage to divorced people for there Paul commands them to remain unmarried or be reconciled.
Robert:
Oh, so Paul was merely teaching against polygamy? The context certainly does not support that thinking. The reason given for the command was that it would help one avoid fornication. That is accomplished by having a spouse. Thus, the need for a spouse was the gist of the context. The command was to let persons who have no spouse have one. Nevertheless, Jack insists that a person who has been divorced, and for all practical, legal and moral purposes, has no spouse, the command does not apply. Rather we are to NOT to “let him marry” Jack tells us. Just the opposite, you see. If Jack’s application is not contrary to the clear import of the passage there never has been anything said that did contradict scripture.
6. If a man did not have his “own wife” (verse 2) would this mean he did not have A wife, thus being unmarried (not married), or would it just mean he did not have someone else’s wife? If the latter is the case wouldn’t Paul’s statement be superfluous?
Jack:
I do not understand the question. I will attempt to answer what I think you are asking by saying that it is possible for a man not to have a wife (to be unmarried), but to still be bound to someone by virtue of having divorced them. The general rule in such cases is that he must remain unmarried or be reconciled. This being the case, Paul’s statement is not superfluous.
Robert:
Jack did not answer the question, but instead revamped his original assertion regarding the divorced being bound, as is a common practice of false teachers. There assertions are their authority so that is what they use. Assert it over and over and people will eventually begin to believe it, and if they already believe, their efforts, they hope, will cause people to get so set in it that they will never be able to consider anything else. The reason for the question above was that some have asserted that the text just means that an unmarried person could not have someone else’s spouse, which would indeed be superfluous. I have heard that argument made more than once.
7. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. In the above passage does the apostle Paul place great importance upon sexual activity, which is confined to the husband/wife situation? Yes or no?
Jack:
Yes, but the desire for sexual activity does not in and of itself authorize one, or as your proposition says, all to divorce and marry another.
Robert:
I have not contended for the idea that anyone may divorce and marry another. And certainly the proposition I signed is nothing like that. One may be wrong to divorce. One may not like it when the other divorces him or her. But a divorce is a divorce and it ENDS the relationship and all the obligations inherent in that covenant.
Paul’s teaching regarding marriage to avoid fornication must not be overlooked or rejected. One who tells a person who has no marriage that he cannot marry is failing to obey a direct command from the inspired word of God. There will be consequences!
8. Who is required to let persons (men and women) have their own spouse? a) Roman Catholic authorities; b) The parents; c) Preachers; d) Elders; e) All of the above.
Jack:
I would answer “e,” but I would also say that our issue is not over whether or not one can have a spouse, but whether or not one can have another. There is a big difference between the two ideas.
Robert:
There seems to be an effort to confuse the issue here. I will assume, for now, that it was unintended. I am not contending that anyone can have more than one spouse. I’m contending that a divorced person, who my opponent admits is “unmarried,” can marry another, i.e. someone OTHER than the previous spouse. Jack, let us stay with the proposition.
9. Do divorced persons have a spouse (husband or wife)? Do divorced persons have a marriage? No assumptions please. What did Paul teach?
Jack:
As I explained in my second negative argument, divorced persons are unmarried, but they are bound by God’s law and must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. Technically, they do not have a spouse, nor a marriage, but they are bound to remain unmarried or to be reconciled. The apostle Paul teaches this in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, and in Romans 7:2, 3.
Robert:
I’m going to borrow the terminology that Jack has used to answer this one. It is the “general rule” that divorced persons have no spouse. More than that, the inspired rule is not only that they have no spouse but that we must “let them marry.” This is the inspired rule and the divine command.
11. What reason did Paul give for his requiring that EVERY man/woman be allowed to have his/her own spouse (verse 2)? Please note the passage below and pick which answer below you prefer. “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” a) He wanted the reader to believe that some should not be allowed to have a spouse if they were unsuccessful in making a previous marriage work. b) He knew there was a very great temptation for healthy men and women to commit sexual sins (fornication), thus he pointed to marriage as God’s means of avoiding such sins. c) Both the above. d) None of the above.
Jack:
I would first point out that our debate is not over whether or not every person is entitled to a spouse. Our debate is whether they are entitled to another spouse—you are affirming that all may divorce and marry another. Consequently, the question is immaterial. Nevertheless, the answer is that every person is entitled to one spouse (not another spouse as your proposition affirms) because of the great temptation for healthy men and women to commit sexual sins (fornication), thus he pointed to marriage to one as God’s means of avoiding such sins.
Robert:
I have already addressed the misrepresentation of the proposition back at number eight and elsewhere.
I appreciate that my opponent recognizes the need for marriage. Now if I can just get him to see that people who have been divorced do not have a marriage maybe he will change his mind about whether or not to “let them marry.”
12. Paul said, regarding the “unmarried,” “if they cannot contain let them marry.” Since there are some that “cannot contain,” who is guilty of throwing a stumbling block before his “unmarried” (divorced) brother if he tells him he has no right to a marriage and that requirement results in his NOT being able to resist fornication and dying in sin? You may pick from the choices given below: a) God. b) The devil. c) The preacher who convinces him he is still married and not eligible for marriage. d) Both b and c.
Jack:
Your question ignores the fact that Paul speaks to people unmarried by virtue of divorce and commands them to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. That being the case you are trying to apply Paul’s statement to a class of people that the context clearly indicates the statement was not intended to be applied to.
Additionally, divorced people may marry if they cannot contain, they are simply limited to marrying their former spouse in such cases. They may not marry another because to do so is to commit the very thing Paul is trying to avoid in these instructions—sexual immorality (Mark 10:11, 12; Matthew 19:9).
Robert:
My opponent has not established that any divorced or unmarried person is still bound. He seeks to avoid the conundrum here by once again asserting that “let them remain unmarried” means the same thing that it means in verses 8 and 9. However, that conclusion is not a scholarly one and certainly that passage should not be used as a basis to force other passages in Paul’s teaching to harmonize with it. That simply is not proper hermeneutics. Bloomfield says it clearly does not mean what my opponent insists it means.
13. Is there anything in my teaching that is not consistent with God’s statement: “It is not good that the man should be alone”? Yes or no? Can the same be said of your teachings? Yes or no?
Jack:
In regard to your teaching the answer is “yes.” God teaches it is good for a divorced person to remain unmarried (i.e., alone) if they cannot reconcile with their mate (1 Corinthians 10:11, 12).
Robert:
It certainly would be good for a man to be alone (not to marry another) if he was merely separated from his wife, because in his case to marry would be adultery. However, a Christian couple merely separated would want to do the right thing, which would be to seek reconciliation. It is purely assumption, based upon misinterpretation of scripture, to assert that a divorced person in all circumstances is to remain celibate. Because of the “present distress” the woman that was separated from her husband was to remain in that state, as unmarried i.e. without a man. But to interpret this text to mean she could never marry, even after a divorce, which could become “scriptural” according to my opponent’s own view, is a presumptuous position to hold. That the woman was obviously only separated is evident by the air of the context, and the fact that there is no mention of anything like the exception my opponent envisions indicates that divorce was not in the picture.
Jack:
In regard to my teaching, the answer is “no.”
Robert:
Unfortunately, Jack’s teaching is contrary to God’s statement. If his wife found herself another man and succeeded in divorcing Jack so she could have him, then he would soon realize just how “not good” it is for a man to be alone.
14. When you tell a brother or sister whose spouse has legally divorced him/her that he/she must remain celibate, insisting that it is for his or her own good, do you suppose he/she would think what you are teaching is consistent with what I have quoted (above) from God on the matter? Do you show them the above passage as well as other passages in Paul’s teachings?
Jack:
I have never told anyone that they must remain celibate. I have always told people that they must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. I share all of God’s teaching on this subject with everyone who asks me.
Robert:
Is the reader to conclude that you do not see Jesus’ teaching, in Matt 19:10-12, to be supporting the idea that those divorced are to remain celibate? If so, that is good, because he was not teaching it. Your help in teaching the truth on this matter will be appreciated. ;-)
If indeed you do share all of God’s teachings before you communicate (by your misuse of a passage) with someone that has been divorced, that he/she can’t marry another (and I have no reason to doubt it) I expect that you are not very successful in your efforts. It would be virtually impossible for a halfway intelligent “unmarried” unbiased person to be made to see that he/she is bound to a person from whom he/she is divorced, especially if that person has married another. And it becomes even more unbelievable when you say that the other person is free from him/her and may marry another. If you show people in this condition the passage regarding “forbidding to marry,” described as “doctrines of devils,” they would surely raise some serious eyebrows if you told them it had nothing to do with divorce and remarriage. If you showed them the command to “let them marry” and the phrase “they sin not” they would either determine that you were teaching something the Bible does not teach, that the Bible contradicted itself or that they needed to carefully study the passages that have led you to not think the above phrases do not mean what they say. I think the truth sheds a lot of light on my opponent’s error.
15. What evil has resulted from the Catholic Church’s edict that forbids marriage for those who would be a priest or nun? Please pick one of the following: a) An increase in morality and surge in successful efforts in evangelism. b) The utter failure of the system, a decrease in morality and many souls lost due to unfair, unjust and unscriptural requirements. c) None of the above.
Jack:
This question is immaterial to the debate. However, I would characterize this teaching as unscriptural, and as with all unscriptural teaching it has led to sin. Robert, have you considered the evil that will come from your view that all may divorce their spouse and marry another?
Robert:
I think this is the first question that my opponent has actually completely dodged. Obviously the requirements of celibacy for priests and nuns have resulted in everything listed in the question above. And if it is required of healthy sexually “gifted” (1 Cor 7:7) Christians it will, in many cases, result in evil and even apostasy.
My opponent misrepresented me on this one matter repeatedly in his first negative. No evil comes from unmarried properly educated persons marrying someone of the opposite sex. But we know what happens when they are required to live without sex. If they have a healthy sexual appetite or have a great “gift” as Paul put it, they sometimes (if not often) resort to such things as pornography, visiting prostitutes, dating and eventually fornicating. And they often get married again, against their misinformed conscience, and turn completely away from Jesus and his people. Sadly, in many cases when people are down because of the unfortunate events in their lives their faith is destroyed when brethren make unreasonable and unscriptural demands and reject them if they are not met.
16. Since it has become apparent that evil results from celibacy (as seen among Catholics), is it reasonable to conclude that Paul teaches celibacy for a woman (outside distressful times) who has been divorced and whose husband refuses to reconcile or who has divorced her and married another? Yes or no?
Jack:
More evil results when a divorced person marries another than when they obey God and remain unmarried or else be reconciled. Divorce is a dreadful sin in the sight of God, and marriages in which divorced people have married another encourage this evil.
Robert:
My friend, you are completely wrong about divorce being a dreadful sin. You should know better than that because God gave us a personal example teaching us: 1) That it is sometimes necessary to divorce, 2) Why to divorce, and 3) When to divorce (Jer. 3:8). He divorced Israel, not when they committed adultery but after the marriage was dead and there was no hope of reconciliation. Your perversion :-) says God “hates divorce” but the older reliable versions say he hates “putting away.” And you need to learn that the thing you are doing, telling spouseless persons that they must remain that way, makes you guilty of doing virtually the same thing that God hates and which Jesus condemned in the passage you pervert to support your practice.
17. In view of the meaning of the word “unmarried” (“Not married-not joined to another person by marriage, having no spouse”) is it reasonable to conclude that one who is legally/scripturally married is bound (legally and morally obligated) but that one who is “unmarried” is not bound? Yes or no?
Jack:
No, that is not a reasonable, nor is it a scriptural conclusion. Please review my second affirmative argument on this subject.
Robert:
Jack simply denies the meaning of “unmarried,” except in the one place where he sees the possibility of twisting the passage to support what he thinks Jesus taught, and it is seen as just another conundrum for those trying to make sense out of his teaching. Brethren, if you are truly looking for the truth remember to apply proper hermeneutics in your study. Those who are teaching error ignore many of the rules. You can apply all the rules to the truth I’m trying to get across to my beloved brother and honorable opponent and it will pass every test, which will cause honest hearts to change and accept it as sound doctrine.
18. In view of the meaning of our word divorce, and the Greek word lusis, is it reasonable to conclude that one “loosed” (lusis) from a spouse is still married (“in God’s eyes”) or bound (obligated in some way) to that spouse?
Jack:
If…you are asking can a person be divorced in civil law’s eyes, but married in God’s eyes, the answer is no. If you are asking can a person be divorced, and yet still be bound (i.e., obligated) to their former spouse, then the answer is yes. Please review my second negative argument on this subject.
Robert:
It is beyond reason to conclude that a person that is loosed from a spouse is not free from that person and therefore eligible to marry another. One that is divorced, according to Jack’s idea of an exception, is “loosed” and free, which he will admit. But one divorced for whatever reason is loosed and therefore free. The word loosed applies to the person that is divorced. One cannot be loosed and bound at the same time. That is an obvious contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, my opponent’s entire proposition is based upon that ridiculous assumption.
Jack:
You ask several questions here. Anything Paul teaches is reasonable and acceptable, and in harmony with all other scriptures, so that answers those questions. However, your conclusions about what Paul teaches are neither reasonable nor acceptable.
Robert:
When I contend that a divorce was written into the Law of Moses and does exactly what it was designed by the mind of God to do, Jack asserts that it is not reasonable. God said, “Come, let us reason together.” Jack evidently has a problem reasoning with God because he seems determined to take obscure passages and twist them and force them to support his explanation of plain scripture that, to the unbiased person, simply means what it says.
“Is the idea of requiring one who has divorced and has no spouse consistent with God’s justice?”
You seem to be arguing that God’s requirement that divorced individuals remain unmarried, or else be reconciled, is some form of punishment. You are simply mistaken about that. God’s laws exist to protect men and women, and to protect the institution of marriage.
Robert:
Indeed, requiring persons who have no marriage, whether you call them divorced, single, unhitched, loosed, unbound, or unmarried, the result is the same: To teach that they cannot marry another (not be married to two at once) is contrary to Paul’s teaching and, whether you admit it or not, it is punishment. And often innocent persons are punished. That concept is contrary to God’s nature and, according to the passage noted in the question, it is sinful action. But in the case where there is a mere separation, such as 1 Corinthians 7:11, there is no punishment involved in requiring them to remain in that state - as unmarried in view of the present distress. If they had actually divorced they would then have been in the “loosed” category (verse 27). These were told they would not sin if they marry (verse 28). There can be no doubt as to whether those divorced persons who heard or read Paul’s words understood that since they were “loosed” they could marry another.
Yes, God’s law is designed to protect men and women and to protect the institution of marriage. But my opponent not only has rejected God’s law regarding divorce, which dissolves the marriage, i.e., unbinds the participants, but he also is guilty of doing something similar to what the Jews were (and are) doing, which resulted in God’s issuing the command to divorce. The evil practice was that of putting someone into a position of not being able to satisfy his/her sexual needs, which can only be done through marriage. It is a common practice among us even today. Selfish evil men did it then. Today it is done by people who think they know the truth and think they are doing the will of God.
My opponent espouses a doctrine that takes away the God given right of divorce. Moses’ command (divorce) was never permission to go against your promises in the covenant you made, or to act treacherously toward your spouse. Jack’s doctrine leaves people without the means God ordained to help in resisting the temptations of Satan. Jack and numerous others do this in spite of the fact that to give the bill of divorcement (Deut. 24:1-3) is as clear a command as anything in the Bible and was confirmed to be a command by Jesus (Mark 10:3). Brethren, God commanded the men to free the women whom they rejected. Putting them away does not free them. Since women in our country are allowed to divorce their husband there obviously is not the problem that was apparent among the Jews. The problem in our day is brethren claiming that persons who are divorced and therefore “unmarried” have no right to marry another. I am very grateful to Jack for helping me teach the truth on this matter.
20. Are there righteous people that have gotten divorced and are forced to celibacy because of your teachings? If so, are they being punished or does God just allow an evil spouse to get away with causing this evil? How can it be justified by saying it is a “consequence” of sin when the passage noted above condemns punishing the innocent? In view of the above, does it not seem reasonable that a divorce does indeed free the parties to marry another?
Jack:
There are people who through no fault of their own are forced to a divorce, and thus are forced to remain unmarried or else be reconciled. As I said before, I have never taught anyone that they must remain celibate. They may be reconciled if and when that opportunity presents itself.
Robert:
By “forced to a divorce” are you saying the scriptures teach that a divorce is to be required? Didn’t you tell us that God hates divorce? How can you have it both ways? I guess He only hates divorce in the case where your doctrine, for consistency’s sake, requires it. J
What do you do when one is divorced and his/her spouse marries another? Do you encourage he/her to seek to bust up that marriage? Indeed, your doctrine encourages divorce. If a couple is having troubles, maybe they both have engaged in “immorality,” they start thinking, “I’ve got to initiate the divorce. If I wait he/she might do so first and the brethren will not allow me to marry another.”
My opponent’s doctrine also encourages, actually demands, divorce in cases where one was legally divorced but is presently legally married to another.
Jack:
People who are divorced through no fault of their own do suffer, but no, I do not believe that God is punishing them. Additionally, I don’t believe that any sinner, including the one who unjustly divorces his mate, will get away with anything. All men shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give an answer for what they have done.
No, these arguments do not reasonably lead to the conclusion that divorced parties are free to marry another, and they especially do not lead to your conclusion that all may divorce and marry another. Sometimes as Christians we will suffer because of the wrongs of others. Such suffering does not alter God’s will for us. We cannot, as you are arguing, sin to stop suffering. In other words, one who is unjustly divorced (and thus must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled) cannot alleviate that suffering by sinning through marrying another. He would simply be moving from one form of suffering, into another form of greater suffering inasmuch as he would sever his fellowship with God.
Robert:
Deny it all you like, your doctrine results in suffering. People are being punished and it is not God that is doing it or requiring it. We have heard from Him on the matter and you made no reply to the passage. What you teach is a doctrine of man (actually described as “doctrines of demons”) that results in believers of it being punished. God inspired Moses to make the divorce Law and He inspired Paul to make it very clear that persons properly divorced, and therefore loosed, are to be allowed to marry and that “they sin not” when they do.
My question about “getting away with” something had to do only with this life. You cannot deny the fact that evil persons can use your doctrine to cause great suffering for another and they indeed get away with it because your doctrine allows them to so do and your demands help them. All they have to do is divorce their Christian spouse (who has been indoctrinated by your theory), marry another and they have literally taken away the most basic right that God has given man, and there is nothing that one can do about it except learn the truth, reject the error and practice the truth. The truth sets free. Jack’s error binds people - locking them in Satan’s grip.
21. Why did Paul mention the “present distress” and could we reasonably conclude that someone was commanded to do something or not do something simply because of the situation at hand, and that the command was not intended to be true for all time?
Jack:
This has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
Paul mentioned the present distress (probably persecution) and argued that if possible it might be best to avoid marriage until it was over. However, he clearly states that those who chose to marry (not marry another!) may do so.
Robert:
Jack, to argue that the “present distress” has nothing to do with what we are discussing is only true IF your doctrine is true. Thus, I think many readers are not going to “inhale” what your stated. You contend that the woman of verse 11 was married. Various very credible scholars clearly indicate they think that Paul spoke of a separation. Bloomfield was the most plain spoken that I have found so far and he said it is plain! Robertson was also very clear. Considering the fact that Paul indeed addressed separated couples it is not only reasonable but probable that he would advise them not to divorce and not marry another - to wait, because of the “present distress,” and deal with the problems later.
22. In verse 27, is the word “bound” (deo) used in contrast to the word “loosed” (lusis)? [1Co 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.]
Jack:
Yes.
Robert:
My opponent was forced to admit that the word “bound” is used in contrast to the word “loosed.” The contrast indicates that anyone who is “loosed” is not bound, which is something my opponent apparently denies. Thus, by his own admission he denies the teachings of the next verse, which informs “loosed” persons that they are not bound, which means they could then marry another. This is really devastating to Jack’s proposition.
23. Does what Strong and Thayer say about the word “lusis” indicate they thought it refers to divorce? Yes or no? [Thayer: “1b) of the bond of marriage, divorce”].
Jack:
As Thayer demonstrates the word may be used of a divorce, but it depends upon the context in which it appears. It is exactly like our English word “loose.” It can be used in a context to refer to divorce, but it certainly doesn’t mean this in every context. I urge Brother Waters and the reader to review my second negative argument on the distinction between the concept of being bound and being married, and being loosed and being divorced.
Robert:
It is strange that Jack insists (or will) that APOLUO means divorce when it is only given, by some lexicographers, as one meaning - certainly not at the top of the list; yet when “lusis,” which is defined as divorce, is brought into the equation he refuses to admit that divorce is the meaning. In the context of our discussion there can be no doubt that “lusis” refers to divorce. Thus, there can be no doubt that divorced persons are loosed, which means they are unbound and free. You will see from Jack’s reply, immediately below, that he is not ready yet to admit that “lusis” means divorce in the text. Of course when he does he may as well admit he has given up the debate.
24. If loosed does not mean or refer to legal divorce (which authorities define as the act of dissolving a marriage) what word (that Paul used) does mean divorce?
Jack:
Paul uses the word aphiēmi, meaning to “send away, or divorce” (1 Corinthians 7:12).
Robert:
Paul says, “and let not the husband ‘aphiemi’ the wife.” Indeed, some of the scholars of the recent versions, men who evidently have been won over by the traditional doctrine on MDR, translate aphiemi as divorce. But note how the versions below translate the word:
The ASV and Darby: “Let him not leave her.” YLT: “let him not send her away.” Bible in Basic English: “let him not go away from her.” BBE: “let him not go away from her.” DRB: “let him not put her away.” ISV: “he must not abandon her.” KJV: “let him not put her away.” LITV: “let him not leave her.” MKTV: “do not let him put her away.” MSG: “hold on to her.” WNT: “let him not send her away.” WEB: “let him not leave her.” TYN: “let him not put her awaye.” KJ2000: “let him not put her away.” GB: “let him not forsake her.” DBY: “let him not leave her.”
The context is especially important in this discussion of verse 12 and succeeding verses, which is evident from reading virtually any commentator. The Jews were not allowed to marry aliens. Some of the Corinthians no doubt had asked about their marriages to unbelievers. As we have seen from a study of Old Testament passages (and Matt 19:9), Jews who had married outside the family of God, or who had otherwise married contrary to the Law of God, such as incest, only needed to “put way” or separate. The relationship was described as porneia, which is a broad term that includes far more than adultery.
Let us note some comments from a well known commentary, just in passing:
Gil
“The Jews had a law prohibiting marriages with Heathens and idolaters; and such marriages were dissolved, and such wives put away.”
Is it not clear, at least from the above statement, that Gil understood that there was a difference in “putting away” and the marriage being dissolved?
Strong says:
[Grk. 863] aphiemi (af-ee'-ay-mee)
from 575 and hiemi (to send; an intensive form of eimi, to go); to send forth, in various applications (as follow):--cry, forgive, forsake, lay aside, leave, let (alone, be, go, have), omit, put (send) away, remit, suffer, yield up.
If you think Thayer hung the moon and are therefore willing to reject the fact that most of the best scholars do not see aphiemi to mean divorce then that is your choice. You set the course for your own destiny; I’m just trying to help by pointing you in the right direction.
25. Does the word depart (chorizo) indicate a divorce has taken place or does it refer to a separation?
Jack:
It depends upon the context in which it appears. All divorces are departures, but not all departures are divorces.
Robert:
My opponent’s answer here really does not make sense. First, Strong makes no mention of divorce for the meaning of “chorizo.” I found no versions that rendered the word as divorce in the text. In fact, we have looked at many versions that make it clear that the case in verse 11 was a mere separation.
Again, Thayer throws divorce into the equation, but offers no reason for so doing. I suppose he was just a man after all, subject to error like the rest of us.
Jack says all divorces are departures. There are three things necessary to make a scriptural divorce. All three are noted in Deut. 24:1-4. Thus, there is obviously more to a divorce than a departure. Of course Jack knows that because he has already so noted.
Then Jacks says, “But not all departures are divorces.”
This does not make a lot of sense to those of us who know what is involved in a scriptural divorce, especially those of us who are not trying to defend a doctrine that is false. Any time there is a divorce, as described by Moses, there is a departure. The departure happens when the part of the passage (Deut. 24:1-4) that says “send her away” is obeyed.
Question: If a woman is not given the writing of the bill of divorcement but just departs can it EVER be said correctly and scripturally said that a divorce actually took place?
26. Did Robertson, in his word studies, say, in his comments regarding verse 11: “If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she gets separated”?
Jack:
I could not find this quotation. What I said above applies here also—all divorces are separations, but not all separations are divorces.
I did find this quotation from Robertson on the word depart: “Third class condition, undetermined. If, in spite of Christ’s clear prohibition, she get separated (ingressive passive subjunctive), let her remain unmarried (menetō agamos). Paul here makes no allowance for remarriage of the innocent party as Jesus does by implication.” Clearly Robertson views the “departure” as a divorce inasmuch as he acknowledges the departure leaves the two unmarried. This would not be the result of a mere separation.
Robert:
Evidently you did not look very hard to find the quote because it was the next paragraph below what you quoted. Did he say it? You know he did. But he is just one of numerous scholars, including those who had a part in many of our best versions, who understood the text, which is critical to your proposition, to be about separation rather than divorce.
27. Since scholars do not define the word “depart” as divorce is it reasonable to conclude that one who has departed has simply departed; which is nothing more than a separation?
Jack:
Brother Waters is not being fair with words in this question. Sometimes we use the English word “depart” to refer to a divorce. Does the fact that most English dictionaries don’t include this example mean the word cannot have that meaning? Just so, the word “depart” in 1 Corinthians 7:11, 12, clearly refers to a divorce.
Robert:
In the last few years we are seeing what appears to be a concerted effort among some brethren, in their writing, to use phrases like “put away,” “the putting away spouse, ” etc., consistently in instances where they are referring to divorce. Indeed words take on new meanings when used improperly. This is exactly what is happening! This is the reason we see some of the newer versions using the word divorce instead of “put away,” “send away,” etc. There is indeed a creed (human) that prohibits unmarried persons from having a spouse, and those who promote and defend that creed are changing our language and putting their creed into the Bible, as is the case with the NASB. This is the very thing that is warned about in Revelation - taking away and adding to the word of God.
Indeed, both “put away” and “depart” can mean divorce to some people (evidently it does to Jack) but you call a rose by a different name and it is still a rose.
Jack:
The context is the deciding factor, not the dictionary in this case. Neither in pagan society then, nor in our society today was it common practice to merely separate and marry another. In both societies the common practice was to depart in the sense of a divorce before marrying another. Also, in neither society does mere separation leave two unmarried.
Robert:
Jack, did you not read the article on my website called Jewish Women in Chains? Clearly what you deny above is still going on among the Jews.
Mere separation does not leave a couple divorced. You know that. But Paul did say they were to remain “as unmarried.”
Jack has admitted that the word separation can have a slightly different meaning. So we shall see what he says about this.
Jack:
The answer to your question, Brother Waters, is no, it is not reasonable to conclude the word depart refers merely to a separation. Even if it did, all divorces are separations, and therefore you do not have a case.
Robert:
The reader will ultimately be left to decide whether the word “depart” refers to separation or divorce. To me it is very clear that my opponent’s position is woefully lacking in evidence and that my position is solidly supported by the most respected scholars.
28. If “depart” (chorizo) means or refers to divorce in verse 11 then why would it also not mean divorce in verse 15? Obviously, if it means divorce in verse 11 then in the case where an “unbeliever” departs (chorizo) the Christian is then divorced. Is this something you are willing to accept? [It should be apparent that there is nothing in the text that indicates he/she is divorced and thus no longer bound, but that since the Christian is “not under bondage in such cases” to pursue the spouse, he/she may get completely free by legal divorce if he/she so chooses.]
Jack:
In both verses the word “depart” is broad enough to cover both a separation and/or a divorce and the teaching in both verses apply whether it is a mere separation or a divorce that is involved.
Robert:
My opponent surely sees the conundrum I’ve presented for his position. He would like to be able to get out of it by convincing you that depart can mean divorce or separate. But he has presented no evidence to prove it. The context certainly does not help him.
Jack:
When Paul says the believer is not “under bondage” he is referring to the fact that the believer does no wrong in the separation/divorce since it is the unbelieving mate who insists upon this course of action. This is the limit and extent of his meaning. In such cases the believer (according to 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11) must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
Robert:
This is really funny. My opponent evidently is getting confused and so he just takes both sides. He calls it a separation/divorce. Separation and divorce are two different animals and Jack has admitted it. He said, “Yes, I see a difference between a mere separation and a divorce” (see #31). Why, separations are common in our day and they remain as they are, “unmarried” or single, in a sense, until they get back together or divorce. When they divorce they are truly unmarried and no longer bound by the marriage covenant.
29. Does the discussion pertaining to the “unmarried” end at verse 9? Yes or no?
Jack:
No, there are various instructions pertaining to the “unmarred” after verse 9.
Robert:
Jack, I gave you a hint in the next question but you still answered wrong. In verse 10 Paul switches to addressing the married. Yes, he later goes back to “the rest,” which included the “unmarried.” The point I wanted the reader to see is that in verses 10 and 11 the apostle is discussing a situation involving the married. My opponent says they are divorced. CONTEXT, Jack. Take it in context and you will not see the need to twist all of Paul’s other clear teachings to harmonize with what you think verse 11 states. It should be evident to all that Jack’s proposition cannot be sustained.
30. After addressing the “unmarried” Paul, in verse 10, addresses the “married.” Thus, how can you conclude that the “married” whom he addresses in verse 11 are NOT married but are actually divorced?
Jack:
Your question does not make good sense! How can I conclude that the married in verse 11 are not married but are actually divorced??? This doesn’t even make good nonsense.
The text has a parenthetical statement referring to married people leaving the marriage, and verse 11 commands the married not to divorce. “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife,” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 NASB). Please re-ask the question using good logic and grammar.
Robert:
I’m not going to ask the question again because I think it was plain enough. My comments at number 29 address Jack’s comments above. I do want to point out the fact that Jack placed emphasis on the word LEAVE. He is exactly right! The scenario Paul pictured possibly happening was that she simply LEAVE. Now, Jack, if your wife LEAVES you (nothing more) are you then a divorced person? Yes or no?
31. If a person is said to be separated can you logically determine that he/she is legally divorced, which has since the day of Moses required a “bill of divorcement”?
Jack:
Again, your question doesn’t make good sense, but if I understand what you are asking, yes, I see a difference between a mere separation and a divorce. However, in either case should one marry another they commit adultery in the second relationship (Mark 10:11, 12; Matthew 19:9).
Robert:
I finally got the obvious answer out of Jack that I needed, but it was like pulling wisdom teeth. We are making headway, I think. Now that he has admitted there is a difference in separation and divorce he may be able to see how significant this fact really is to our discussion. So far, though, he asserts that both the separated and the married commit adultery when they marry, but Jesus only taught that the separated do that and Paul, when talking about a separated couple, just advised that they stay as they were. He was not even addressing divorced persons in verse 11, thus my opponent cannot possibly sustain his proposition.
32. Since Paul (in verses 10, 11) did not get into the matter of whether one was “innocent” or “guilty,” i.e., he did not deal with the “cause” of the separation, how can you assert that he taught celibacy for LIFE for a wife that had departed (which you, contrary to all evidence, insist means divorced), if her husband would not reconcile?
Jack:
Again, I have never taught anyone that they must remain celibate. I have always taught divorced people that they must remain unmarried, or be reconciled.
Robert:
My opponent has stated numerous times in this discussion that he has never taught anyone that he/she must remain celibate. I think that most readers can see that there is no difference in celibacy and what Jack is telling people. I suppose that he just does not like the sound of the word “celibacy” because it has a bad connotation. It is associated with the Catholic Church, and “doctrines of devils” for that matter (1 Thes. 4:1-3). Evidently Jacks thinks he can protect himself from judgment by just telling people they must remain unmarried. He thinks he is on safe ground but he is on the same ground as Billy Graham who preaches the gospel and then points to John 3:16 in communicating to his audience what they are to do to be saved. Billy knows about Acts 2:38 but it is not popular to go there. His friends would turn against him. He would no longer have a large audience. His finances would be greatly curtailed. So he preaches a different doctrine, one that will be accepted. The passages that clearly support my proposition are numerous, but I’m reasonably sure my opponent does not go there in his preaching. He preaches a different doctrine on MDR as does Graham on salvation.
Jack:
You are asking “how” I hold a position, and that is not a reasonable question. Restate the question and ask me “why” I hold the position I do, and I will be able to answer it. Indeed, if you read and understood my two negative arguments you understand “why” I hold the position I do.
Robert:
My question was a reasonable question. It deals with my opponent’s teaching, which requires celibacy for life for a woman whose spouse divorced her and would not reconcile, but married another. I wanted to know HOW he could conscientiously hold such a position in view of the fact that Paul did not deal with the matter of whether one was innocent or guilty. The very fact that he did not deal with such matters, which involves CONTEXT, is more evidence that he was talking about separation, not divorce.
33. If the phrase “let her remain unmarried” (verse 11) proves the wife that departed is actually divorced, how do you harmonize verses 8 and 9 with your contention?
Jack:
Very simply, Paul is speaking to two different classes of unmarried people. In verses 8 and 9 he is talking to those unmarried by virtue of never having been married, and in verse 11 he is talking to those who are unmarried by virtue of divorce.
Robert:
Brethren, the context that Jack speaks of does not exist. He has to first prove that Paul is teaching that persons separated are actually divorced before anyone can believe Paul addresses two classes of people.
Evidently, not many years ago, some big name preacher came up with the idea that there were two classes of unmarried people. That was just smoke and mirrors. But Jack fell for it. Let the smoke clear and the truth will then stand out brilliantly. Paul did not speak of two distinct classes of unmarried people.
34. Do you agree that Paul commands us to let the “unmarried” marry if they cannot contain. Yes or no please.
Jack:
In contest he is speaking of the unmarried who are unmarried by virtue of never having married, and in that context yes, I believe that Paul teaches they may marry if they cannot contain. However, to apply that statement to verse 10 and 11 is to do violence to the context since Paul clearly commands the unmarried in those verses (i.e., the unmarried by virtue of divorce) not to marry another.
Robert:
Jack agrees that the “unmarried” are to be allowed to marry. There was no way to get around answering as he did. However, he seeks to keep some semblance of life in his doctrine by stating that there are two classes of unmarried. Brethren, those who are truly unmarried are unmarried. Now, you can expect Jack to continue to assert that the couple in verse 11 is unmarried, because the words are the same. But the context kills him and the scholarship is not with him either. The scholars may have believed much like Jack as far as MDR is concerned, but that is not the point. The point is they understood the situation, which is critical to Jack in sustaining his proposition, which needs it to be divorce, not separation. I hope Jack will not continue to hold back the truth like Billy Graham but will admit his error and tell people the truth. Set them free, Jack!
35. In view of the fact that the word “unmarried” in verses 8 and 9 cannot mean exactly the same as it means in verse 11, is it reasonable to accept the explanation of some scholars as to the words having a bit different meaning in verse 11? Yes or no?
Jack:
First, gentle reader, I think it is important that you note that Brother Roberts is here admitting that the word “unmarried” in verses 8 and 9 does not carry the same meaning it carries in verse 11. You drive a peg there and watch him because before this debate is over he will deny that he takes that position.
Robert:
I have stated that the word “unmarried” has a bit different meaning in verse 11. The meaning is different because of the context. Certainly this does not help Jack with his “two classes of unmarried” theory. We shall see if he continues to manipulate my words. However, he has to do something drastic because his ship is sunken and he is just treading water, if that. He needs to realize that it is time to get on another ship. The ship of faith is close by and we will happily take you on board.
Jack:
If, as your question is worded, the word unmarried “cannot mean exactly the same” in these two verses, then yes, it is “reasonable” to expect scholars to hold that the word has different meanings in the two verses. I must say, your questions humor me when the first part of the question rules out any other conclusion than the one you ask for. In such cases it is not a question at all, but a statement. Nevertheless, you must develop your material as you see fit.
Robert:
My reference was to the word “unmarried” in verse 11 having a bit different meaning than what is normally clearly understood. Jack has admitted that scholars have this understanding but he seeks to bring that bit of evidence on board his own ship. It is interesting that he could not find Robertson’s statement that I provided, and therefore made no reply to it or Bloomfield’s clear statement. His reply below is interesting as well.
Jack:
After asking this question Brother Waters includes several quotations from scholars in attempt to show that some of them agree with his position that verses 10 and 11are not talking about a divorce, but a separation. Even if the scholars agreed with him, a fact I am unwilling to concede at this point, all divorces involve separations and would therefore be included in the teaching of verses 10 and 11.
I believe each of the scholars he cites also mention that this person departs leaving them in an unmarried state. Since a mere separation does not do this, I have to believe Brother Waters is misrepresenting these scholars when he tries to interpret them as saying only a mere separation is involved in these passages.
Robert:
The scholars I quoted (plus numerous versions I have quoted in this installment) seemed to have understood the woman who had left (verses 10, 11) to be simply separated, and others there can be no doubt. Regardless of what they say on some other point, they said what they said and some were very clear about it. If they were inconsistent, that was a fault of their own, not mine. I just quoted what they said regarding the one point. Nevertheless, my opponent charges that I misrepresented them. You know, brethren did the same things, at first, when I quoted Mike Willis on Deut. 24:1-4. One preacher said I misrepresented his uncle. But I never heard from Mike about that and as people looked more carefully at what Mike said they realized there was no possibility of my having misrepresented him in the least. Hear Bloomfield on the passage once again and let it soak in. You will see that there is no possibility that I misrepresented him.
“From the use of καταλλ and the air of the context it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not, arising from misunderstandings or otherwise.”
Jack, if it is not a formal divorce what is it? If a separation is not a divorce, and you have admitted that there is a difference, your proposition cannot be affirmed.
Jack:
It is time for a question of my own, and if Brother Waters will do as I am doing then he will cite this question and answer it in his next article. Brother Waters, does a mere separation leave two people unmarried? Gentle reader, you watch him and see if he answers this question, and you rest assured if he does not that he is not doing his duty.
Robert:
No, a mere separation does not leave people unmarried and I have labored vigorously to get you to admit this point. But, once again, as I have explained several times and offered evidence on top of evidence to back it up, the couple discussed in the text were separated - not in fact “unmarried” in the sense of having legally divorced, but they were to remain in that state, “as unmarried” (as so translated by some versions) while trying to work things out. The advice, whether from the Lord or the inspired apostle, was given in view of the present distress. It was advice because in verse 28 they are told they do not sin IF they marry. Of course, this passage would only apply if they had actually divorced. But Jack says they did, so I’m using it and it refutes his position on the point and destroys his proposition completely.
36. Paul used the words “seek not a wife” when speaking to those “loosed.” Was this a command or was it advice, and why was it given?
Jack:
It was advice, and it was given in the view of the then present distress.
It has no application to our proposition since we are considering people that are discussed in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11—people who have divorced their mates. Such people (as I demonstrate in my second negative argument) are still bound by God’s law to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
Robert:
Jack is using circular reasoning. It is his duty to PROVE that verse 11 is about people that have divorced their mates. He has not done that, thus he cannot prove with this circular reasoning technique that “the present distress” “has no application to our proposition.”
I have discussed the “present distress” issue already back in # 35.
37. Did Paul state in verse 28 that those “loosed from a wife” would sin if they married? Yes or no?
Jack:
Paul states in verse 28 that those loosed would not sin if they marry. However, the person of our proposition is not loosed—they are bound to remain unmarried or be reconciled to their former spouse.
Robert:
I got the answer I needed here. Persons loosed (defined as divorced) do not sin when they marry. We are agreed on that point. All that is left is to get Jack to admit that his proof text does not support the idea of there being two classes of unmarried people. When he sees that he will see that ALL who are loosed are, as Paul said, free to marry.
38. In verse 11, was it Paul’s hope that separated persons (when one had departed) would reconcile or that they would get married to each other again? If you say they needed to get married what proof is there they were divorced?
Jack:
The proof that they were divorced is that Paul called them “unmarried.” Please review the material I presented in my second negative argument on what constitutes a marriage and what constitutes a divorce (thus leaving one in an unmarried state).
Robert:
I asked a specific question but got the runaround on this one. If they were truly divorced Paul’s hopes would have been that they get married again. However, there was absolutely nothing in the context that would indicate that Paul entertained such a thought. Clearly, the context was separation and reconciliation, such as is common to this day. If divorced persons reconcile they get married again.
39. Does a couple that has divorced need to marry again? Is it possible for people who are divorced to reconcile with each other but not marry again?
sJack:
Yes, it’s possible. It’s possible for people to kill themselves, but it is not approved of by God.
Divorced individuals must marry each other again in order for their sexual conduct to not involve sexual immorality. While divorced they are unmarried.
Robert:
See my comments above regarding the fact that there is no hint that the couple Jack insists were divorced must marry again.
Look at Jack’s statement immediately above my initials. Brethren, Jack is binding where God did not bind. Once again he has made a statement that simply is not true by his own admission. He allows SOME divorced individuals to marry. He tells us it depends on the reason for the divorce. But we have already dealt with his proof text for that and explained that text in a way that is reasonable and hermeneutically sound and which leaves his doctrine without a foundation. The error that is taught regarding the “exception clause” continually comes back to haunt those who insist that Jesus taught that divorced persons commit adultery when they marry. Oh, there is an exception, they say. The truth is they are teaching a convoluted and false doctrine. The truth is simple: Divorced persons are unmarried and Paul says the unmarried may marry without sin.
40. If a couple divorces and ONE is free to marry, how can the OTHER NOT be free to marry?
Jack:
Brother Waters, this is the easiest question you have asked. They are not free to marry another because Jesus and Paul said they are not fee to marry another.
Robert:
I’m talking about ONE, Jack. One is “loosed” completely and marries another. A marriage covenant is between two parties. If one is out of it so is the other, just as with any other covenant or contract. You have stated that this matter of not allowing one to marry (another, as you say) is not punishment. But it clearly is! People are punishing the divorced for their mess up and you know it. Some freely admit it. Your answer is that it is because God said so. Brother, it is not God that says this, it is man. Your doctrine frequently results in innocent individuals being punished for what their spouse did. But you cannot justify such actions by saying “because Jesus and Paul said they are not fee to marry another.” They said no such thing. Paul said LET THEM MARRY. THEY SIN NOT. Brethren, whom will you believe?
Jack:
You know, when I had small children at home I had a white sign with big red letters on it behind my desk. When ever my children would question my will as to why I was requiring something of them I pointed to the sign. It said, “I’m the daddy, that’s why.” It is sad that we live in a time when people question the will of God and demand to understand why before obeying. In essence that is what Brother Waters is doing here. Unless he can understand why Jesus commands a thing he apparently doesn’t believe he has to do what the Savior commands. God hates divorce, but brother Waters is telling us that all people may divorce and marry another.
Robert:
Jack, I’m not questioning God on anything. I’m trying to teach you and others that you are practicing something that is grave error and you are trying to justify it by saying God tells you to do it. Again, I’m not questioning God. God is clear on the matter of punishing innocent people. (Pr 17:26) Also to punish the righteous is not good, [Nor] to smite the noble for [their] uprightness.”
Jack needs to do some questioning all right. He needs to question what he is doing.
41. If a couple is merely “separated” what happens if one of the parties marries another?
Jack:
They commit bigamy.
Robert:
Evidently Jack saw where I was going with this one and sought to head me off at the pass. I’ll just have to make my point without having gotten a forthright answer from Jack, who failed in his duty on this one.
Jack, if you and your wife are separated and she marries another does she commit adultery against YOU (Mark 10:11)? This is basically what Jesus taught in your proof text that you resorted to in your effort to sustain your proposition.
42. You maintain that in verse 11 Paul teaches that persons divorced are not eligible to marry another (except their spouse). Can you think of a way that one might possibly get around what you assert is God’s law? If there is a way to get around what you assert is God’s law why should the reader not conclude that what you say cannot be God’s law because one cannot get around or circumvent God’s true law? Hint: If Herodias had murdered her first husband do you think John would have needed to tell Herod “it is unlawful for thee to have her”?
Jack:
Murdering a divorced spouse, does not constitute getting “around God’s law.” It leaves you just as unjust (i.e., sinful) as if you had simply divorced and married another. It would simply be an additional sin that you are guilty of. There is no way to get “around God’s law” without incurring guilt.
Robert:
First, yes, one cannot get around God’s Law, which is part of my point. I’m trying to show the reader that Jack’s position is NOT God’s Law. You can get around Jack’s Law, and that proves it is not God’s Law. David murdered a man and took his wife, whom he could not have had if he had not done so. He did wrong, but he got the wife and no where was it called an adulterous relationship. Today, a man could (before becoming a Christian) be married to a woman he did not like. He could kill her and be free from her legally and otherwise. (If he was a King or dictator there would be no punishment even if caught.) Later he could hear the gospel and be forgiven completely by the Lord. Would he be still bound to her? Of course he would not, just like David’s wife was not still bound to her former husband, which if true would have made David an adulterer. All this is to show how silly Jack’s doctrine is. God did not teach what brethren are teaching today. If He did there would be no way to get around it. Men assert that only certain people are eligible for marriage: 1) Those whose spouse has died, 2) Those who have never married; and 3) Those who have divorced their spouse for fornication. God says let the “unmarried” marry because they do not sin. That should settle it. It certainly does for me. How about you?
Jack:
As regards Herod and Herodias, yes, I think John would have been obligated to tell him that, and to tell him he was a murderer as well. Any method one uses to dispose of a wife in order to marry another, whether it be murder or divorce, results in an adulterous marriage. We must not only obey the letter of the law, but it spirit (intention) as well.
Robert:
Jack, you did not carefully read what I said. It was Herodias that did the murdering, not Herod. I wrote, “If Herodias had murdered her first husband do you think John would have needed to tell Herod ‘it is unlawful for thee to have her’”?
Herodias would have been free from her husband according to my opponent’s application to Rom 7:1-3. Yet he now says it would be adultery if the freedom was due to murder. Dead is dead, regardless of how it happened. It appears that Jack is just dead set against people who are not entirely righteous having a marriage. I find no evidence in the scriptures to support that thinking.
43. The apostle Paul said to the “unmarried”: “But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.” If a divorced person is “unmarried” (which is obviously true) isn’t it true that a divorced person is being told he would not sin if he marries, just as a “virgin” would not sin if/when she marries?
Jack:
No, it is not true because such a conclusion would violate the immediate context (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11), and the remote context (Mark 10:11, 12; Matthew 19:9).
Robert:
The immediate context was “unmarried” persons marrying and “virgins” marrying. Virgins could marry but not the unmarried? According to the context BOTH could marry. If one could then the other could. Once again Jack is seen to be going against the context.
44. Do the translations below translate “unmarried” (agamos) in a way that allows Paul to be consistent? Waymouth--“Or if she has already left him, let her either remain as she is or be reconciled to him; and that a husband is not to send away his wife.” Montgomery--"(or if she has already left him let her either remain as she is, or be reconciled to him), and also that a husband is not to put away his wife.”
Jack:
I’m not charging Paul with an inconsistency. Are you? If not, then your question is nonsense.
Robert:
First, I provided two translations that translated agamos in a way that helps us understand that Paul was completely consistent and without having to make up a class of people.
I never said Jack was charging Paul with an inconsistency and I’m certainly not. I am, however, charging that Jack’s doctrine is inconsistent and false and that it cannot be true because it has Paul appearing to be inconsistent. My question certainly was not nonsense. I just wanted Jack to admit that there was much scholarship that is contrary to his view. Jack was not forthright in his response.
Jack:
The fact is that the context must be allowed to have the final say as to the meaning of a word. Whether we use “depart,” “leave,” or “left” the context must determine what kind of leaving is involved. In as much as the leaving here involves leaving the two in an unmarried state it is a necessary implication that divorce is what is being referred to.
Robert:
The text does not say they were in an unmarried state. The two versions that you snipped (without notation) said “as unmarried.”
45. In view of the contextual as well as the scholarly support for the idea that agamos does not mean divorce, can we reasonably conclude that what Paul meant by “remain unmarried” (verse 11) was “remain as she is”– in the separated state; which is, for all practical purposes, without a marriage relationship (agamos) but short of being legally divorced?
Jack:
I disagree with the premise of the question. In other words, I disagree that scholars as a general rule see this passage as you do (a mere separation) and in fact assert that the vast majority, if not the entirety of scholarship sees this passage as referring to a divorce. Since I disagree with the premise I obviously disagree with the conclusion.
Robert:
Evidently my opponent really thinks there is a lot of support for his position. However, he evidently has not done much looking.
Jack:
The word translated “unmarried” here is agamos. It means “Thayer Definition: 1) unmarried, unwedded, single.” It logically demands the conclusion that in 1 Corinthians 7:11 a divorce is what is being discussed in the parenthetical statement.
Robert:
No, when you look at all of Paul’s teachings and the immediate context of verse 11, and the comments of highly respected scholars, logic demands that one conclude that separation is what is being discussed in the text.
46. Paul teaches that a wife is to be subject to her husband and that the husband is to love his wife (Eph. 5:24, 25). In 1 Cor. 7:11, Paul commands that the wife not depart from the husband and that the husband not put away (aphiemi) his wife. What is the meaning of APHIEMI in this passage and why should we, contrary to scholars’ comments and translations, argue that Paul had reference to divorce?
Jack:
Again, I disagree with your premise that scholars believe that “aphiemi” refers to something other than a divorce in this context. The NASV translates the term “divorce” so there are literally hundreds of scholars who would disagree with your premise.
Robert:
In the first part of this installment I gave a brief review of the NASB. I refer the reader to it to answer Jack’s assertion that literally hundreds of scholars support his theory. The JW’s developed their own version and would not reveal the scholar’s names. It may be that the man who was responsible for the NASB did the same thing. If so, it is only as reliable as the source that instigated it.
As my opponent nears the end of his first negative he first makes a statement regarding the proposition that is completely untrue, which if it were true it would help the reader to reject my position and accept his.
He said:
If this proposition is true then a man can divorce 100 wives and marry 100 others in their place and not violate the will of God. This was exactly the position the Jews of Jesus’ day took, and they were wrong. In no dispensation has God allowed for divorce and marriage of another without sin being involved.
Robert:
I preach strongly against anyone’s violating his/her marriage vows. My preaching on that is stronger and more consistent than Jack’s. You see, Jack would encourage some to divorce their spouse so they, in his mind, would quit living in adultery; or maybe so they could go back and rekindle a previous marriage (perhaps even busting that marriage up) so they could get married again. All of which is contrary to Deut. 24:1-4. I expect that Jack will try to make an argument from this text regarding the word “defiled.” Perhaps he will try to show that she could not marry, but others have tried that and failed. It is a dead end street.
When there is a divorce there probably is sin involved, but let us not discount the fact that divorce was a command (Mark 10:3) and those who do it, in the situation that calls for it, are doing God’s will. The situation that called for divorce was where women were not allowed to divorce their husbands and they were merely rejected, sent away, put away, repudiated, or sent out of the house. They could not be with another man, and certainly not marry, without committing adultery, according to Jesus. (By the way, it was true BEFORE He said it. He did not make a new Law.) In this case the men were commanded to divorce, or complete what had already started. Obviously divorce was more than separation because they were already separated. The procedure for the men who wanted to be rid of their wife was clearly laid out in Deut. 24:1-4. It involved three parts and all parts are necessary for there to be a scriptural/legal divorce. I really think my opponent understands this.
Now, only in the last decade has Deut. 24 been pressed as having an important bearing on the teaching of Jesus. Mike Willis understood it clearly back in 1980, but how the passage helps interpret Jesus’ teaching has not been discussed much among us, to my knowledge, until rather recently. Those who seek to defend and maintain the “traditional” position (for lack of a better term) realize the importance of this text to this discussion, therefore it is under attack. We are urged by my opponent to believe what the NASB and a few other versions say and reject all others - even the KJV and the ASV. What they think they need to do is to take out the words “she may go be another man’s wife.” They think that if they change it to “if she goes and becomes another man’s wife” it will help them with their efforts to convince people that Jesus did not change the Law, because divorce was never authorized. They realize that Jesus could not have changed the Law, and that fact is a huge conundrum for their doctrine, so they attempt to change it. But even if the passage were correctly translated in the way they assert, the context indicates that the woman was to be given a certificate of divorce. You then have to ask, why? Well, obviously it was so she could marry another. In addition to that fact, the Jews did commonly divorce and those divorced, under the Law, who married were not charged with adultery. The marriages were accepted as legitimate scriptural marriages. My opponent seeks to convince you that Jesus did teach that those who divorced and married committed adultery, but his argument is based upon faulty translations, scholars who either lied or just did not know the truth, circular reasoning and numerous assumptions. It can be concluded with certainty that the Pharisees did not understand Jesus to have contradicted the teachings of Moses as found in Deut. 24. This fact utterly destroys Jack’s proposition.
Jesus dealt with the evil practice of Jewish men putting away WITHOUT fully divorcing, as commanded by Moses. Paul answered questions from Christians regarding “who may marry.” He makes it very clear that unmarried (divorced) persons may marry and not sin. He gave the reason for doing so - to avoid fornication, and in the event that some might object he said “let them marry.” Brethren, my opponent is just one of many among us who object to Paul’s teachings all the while thinking their own teachings and actions are authorized by the Lord.
I used to believe and teach basically the same thing as my opponent. However, about 14 years ago, while out of “full time” preaching, I determined that I was going to learn the truth, that I was going to believe it and that I was going to teach it. Since that time I have changed positions when I saw something that was more logical. Will you do the same? Honesty demands it. I’m not accusing anyone of being dishonest - I’m merely emphasizing the need for honest behavior. Below is something to consider as you ponder which way you will go on this important issue:
“There are many good people in the world who are honestly mistaken, but when a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, one of two things must happen: He will cease to be mistaken or, he will cease to be honest. If he does not obey it, he will no longer be honest. If he does obey it, he will no longer be mistaken. Honesty and error must separate when truth comes along. No man can be honestly mistaken if he has heard the truth.”
My opponent ends his installment with a misrepresentation that he has made repeatedly throughout his second negative.
“The Jews of Jesus’ day were wrong to believe that they could divorce and marry another, and Robert Waters is wrong today when he believes and teaches that all people may divorce and marry another with God’s approval.”
There is nothing in the proposition that implies that I believe and teach that “all people may divorce and marry another with God’s approval.” I have shown that God hates “putting away,” which is treachery (Mal. 2:14-16 ASV) and I have shown that Paul teaches men to love their wives and women to honor their husbands (Eph. 5:24, 25).
After the Israelites wandered in the wilderness about 40 years they sent 10 spies to check out the land that God had promised for them. Nine of those spies were afraid and came back with a report that was displeasing to God. They looked at the obstacles that had to be removed, and they were great, but they did not consider that God would help them to succeed. Caleb had faith and said, “Let us go take the land now.” They said, “We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.” They were afraid and were satisfied to stay right where they were. And so, to assure that the people did not follow Caleb they began to make up outrageous lies (Numbers 13:32-33).
Could it be that the biggest problem God’s people now face is lack of faith? If you have learned the truth then be like Caleb and urge the people to join you in doing the will of God.
I have affirmed the proposition that I have set out to affirm:
“The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced persons are ‘unbound’ and may marry another.”
I look forward to Jack’s reply.
Brotherly,
Robert Waters
The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced persons are “unbound” and may marry another. Affirm: Robert Waters. Deny: Jack Holt.
Gentle reader, please do not be overwhelmed by Brother Water’s reply. I realize it is verbose, and stretches on to 71 pages, and that as a result some will simply throw up their hands and walk away convinced the subject is too difficult to understand. But I assure you there are really only a few arguments made that truly address the proposition, and that I shall be brief in comparison, but thoroughly refute them in this negative.
“But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife,” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 NASB).
In my first negative I offered two negative arguments. I argued first that 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11instructed divorced people to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled” and that therefore when Brother Waters goes to other portions of 1 Corinthians 7 which are addressed to other unmarried people, and which say that those unmarried people may marry, that he is ignoring the context. In response Brother Waters simply says these people are not divorced, but are merely separated.
I knew that was his position so I asked him a question in the first negative. I asked him, “Does a mere separation leave two people unmarried?” He answered, “No, a mere separation does not leave people unmarried…” He went on to explain that he believes 1 Corinthians 7:11 does not say the two are “unmarried” but they are separated “as unmarried” people are. Here is the passage in several translations…
(ASV) (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.
(EMTV) and even if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband--and a husband is not to divorce his wife.
(ESV) (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
(KJV) But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
(LITV) but if indeed she is separated, remain unmarried, or be reconciled to the husband; and a husband not to leave his wife.
(NASB) (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
Robert’s whole case is built upon his assertion that “unmarried” in this text does not mean the two are divorced, but merely separated. Gentle reader, you can read the text, and you know just like I do that Robert is simply wrong here. He agrees that a mere separation does not leave two unmarried, yet this text says the two are unmarried, therefore the text is not talking about a mere separation and that being the case Robert’s entire position on 1 Corinthians 7 as it relates to divorced people is in error, and that being the case his proposition is in error.
Robert’s argument on 1 Corinthians 7 is that verses 8 and 9 give all unmarried people the right to marry, including granting people who are unmarried by virtue of divorce the right to marry another. This ignores the fact that in verses 10 and 11 Paul speaks to people who are married and tells them to stay that way, and then tells them that if they do divorce (i.e., become unmarried) they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled. The truth is so simple, isn’t it?
One cannot apply a general statement to a class of people when more specific statements concerning their class exist. The specific statements should be used to limit and define the general statements. In this case, verses 10 and 11 make it clear that verses 8 and 9 are addressed to the never married and to widows, and that divorced people should look to verses 10 and 11 to understand their obligations before God.
In 1 Corinthians 7:10 Paul emphasizes that what he taught there was the Lord’s teaching. Robert tells us we assume that Paul is referring to Matthew 19:9 and its parallels, and that the assumption is unwarranted. Robert is simply wrong. When one studies Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11, 12 and their parallels one sees immediately that Jesus teaches against divorce and that He teaches against marriage to another after a divorce. No, Paul does not use the same words Jesus used, but Paul gives the same commands Jesus gives by implication in these passages—if you are married, stay that way. If, however, you divorce do not marry another—remain unmarried, or be reconciled.
In my second negative argument I defined what a marriage is, what a divorce is, and what it means to be bound. I demonstrated from the Bible that when two divorce they enter an unmarried state, yet they continue to be bound (i.e., under obligation to God and His law) to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.” I also showed from Jesus’ teaching, and from Paul’s teaching in Romans 7, that those who marry another in spite of this bond commit adultery when they do so.
What did my opponent say about this argument? Here is what he said: “My opponent has admitted that divorced persons are unmarried, but he holds the absurd position that they are nevertheless still bound. It does not matter how many people agree with and give their support to Jack, that position is still absurd.” Gentle reader, this is not an adequate response. Ridicule does not answer an argument.
Robert’s case rests upon his assumption that when two divorce they are unbound. His proposition says that “all divorced persons are unbound and may marry another.” He must prove this to us. In view of Romans 7:2, 3, he simply cannot prove this fundamental assumption.
“For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.,” (Romans 7:2-3 NASB).
The force of this passage is that when two marry they are bound for life—as long as they both live. They may, as Paul demonstrates in 1 Corinthians 7:11, become unmarried, but they continue to be bound (i.e., obligated by God and His law) to each other and therefore must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
Robert attempts to negate the force of this by suggesting that I have ignored verse 4. Verse 4 goes on to talk about how death releases us from the law that we might be joined to Christ. It has nothing to do with the proposition, and does not negate the truths taught in verses 2 and 3. We are talking about divorce and marriage to another in this debate, not death.
“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God,” (Romans 7:4 ASV).
Robert states that “one cannot be loosed and bound at the same time. This is an obvious contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, my opponent’s entire proposition is based upon that ridiculous assumption.” He is simply wrong about this. Certainly one cannot be loosed and bound in the same sense at the same time, but one can be loosed from a marriage by divorce, yet bound (obligated) by God to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
While making this argument I cited Jesus’ statements in Mark 10:11, 12 and Matthew 19:9 which teach that those who divorce and marry another commit adultery in the second marriage. Robert asserts Jesus is not talking about divorce in these passages, but that he is talking about a mere separation. He asserts that the phrase “put away” does not refer to divorce, but a separation.
Gentle reader, Robert is playing word games with us. In the English language we use many terms to speak of divorce. I might say one has “left his wife” and in the proper context everyone knows I am speaking of a divorce. Or, I might say that one has “departed” from his wife, and again in the proper context everyone would know that I am talking about a divorce. Yes, in some contexts these terms might refer to a separation, but we cannot argue that because they can refer to a separation, that in every case they are referring to a separation.
That is what Robert is doing here. He is saying that there are contexts in which the term “put away” might refer to a mere separation, and then he is asserting that is the case in Matthew 19:9 and its parallels. In so doing he is ignoring the context. When a context speaks of “marrying another” it implies that a marriage first existed to one, and that marriage is now over as a result of a divorce and a second marriage is being entered into.
Robert lists several dictionaries and notes that none of them define “put away” as divorce. As I said above, context must define what a word means. We use many words and phrases in different contexts to refer to a divorce such as:“leave,” left,” “depart” “put away” “dropped” (as in, “he dropped his wife for another”), etc. Not all of them are mentioned in the dictionary. The dictionary is important and helps us understand words, but the final authority on what a word means is the context in which it is used. Besides all this, Robert knows, and has acknowledged, that lexicons like Thayer and Strong define “putting away” as “divorce.” Consequently, all of his dictionary citations are evasions of the issue, and attempts to snow the reader by false appeals to supposed authorities.
In the process of making his arguments, however, Robert really answered himself. He cited Mark 10:2-5 where the Bible says, “And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?’ trying him. And he answered and said unto them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ And they said, ‘Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away,’” (Mark 10:2-4 ASV). When Robert cited this he argued that the bill of divorcement is the divorce, and that “put her away” cannot be the divorce because you would have Jesus in essence saying “divorce your wives and to divorce them.”
What Robert misses here is that the bill of divorcement is not the entirety of the divorce, but is only one element of it. Robert asserted in his last affirmative, and I agree, that a divorce under the Old Law involved writing a bill of divorcement, putting it in her hand, and then sending her out of the house (or what is called in this text “put her away.”) This entire process was the divorce, and therefore when Jesus cites the last step (the putting away) He has in mind the entire process of divorce! Consequently, Robert’s own text demonstrates Jesus is talking about a divorce in Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11, 12! Jesus is in fact making a synecdochical statement—citing a part (i.e., the putting away) when the whole is intended (the bill, the placing it in her hand, and the putting away).
“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery,” (Matthew 19:9 ASV).
“And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery,” (Mark 10:11-12 ASV).
Robert tripped over himself in another instance on this issue as well. At one point in his second affirmative he offered us his own paraphrase of Matthew 19:9. Remember, he doesn’t believe the term “put away” there refers to a divorce, but that it refers to a mere separation. Here is the paraphrase he offered us…
“Whoever shall send his wife out of the house and marry another, commits adultery, unless he sent her away because of “fornication,” which is being committed because of the illicit relationship.”
Now, since Robert says he believes “put away” refers to a “mere separation,” let’s put that into his paraphrase and see what he is saying.
“Whoever shall separate and marry another, commits adultery, unless he separates because of “fornication,” which is being committed because of the illicit relationship.”
Do you see the problem? He is saying one may merely separate, and marry another if fornication is involved! That is the force of the exception statement as he has written it! Remember, he denies the word refers to a divorce, so the force of the exception clause is that one may merely separate and marry another! This is the kind of trouble one gets in when he takes a ridiculous position and denies the obvious. The obvious is that “put away” in this passage refers to a divorce.
Additionally, the Matthew 5 parallel also demonstrates that Jesus is using the term “put away” to refer to a divorce.
“It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery,” (Matthew 5:31-32 ASV).
Notice in this text—THE PUTTING AWAY INVOLVED THE GIVING OF A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT! This should forever settle the matter in the minds of honest readers.
As is the case with all false teachers Robert brings up many side issues in an attempt to cloud the air and muddy the water.
One of them pertains to the NASV. I presented it and several other versions in my first negative to show that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is written in the conditional mode, rather than the permissive mode. I simply will not be drawn into a discussion in this debate concerning the reliability of the NASV. It is recognized generally as reliable, I have used it as my primary translation in my preaching and teaching for the last 27 years because I believe it to be reliable, and that is all I have to say in this debate about the matter. I will likely have more to say on Deuteronomy 24 later on.
In connection with that, I will not be drawn into a discussion in this debate concerning the definition of the word “immorality” and how it relates to the issue of divorce and marriage to another. For the time being I will simply state that I don’t believe that mere lust justifies divorce and marriage to another. If Robert wishes to discuss this subject he can draw up propositions and we can discuss it some other time, but it is not within the scope of this discussion.
Neither will I get drawn into debating what commentators believe. Citing commentators is legitimate when they make an argument applicable to the debate. However, in every citation that my opponent has made not a single one takes the position he does on divorce and marriage to another! Nor does any passage he cites from the commentaries make an argument. In every case Robert cites the commentary in an effort to prove that someone else believes some element he does, but not a single one of them makes an argument and tells us why they believe it. I readily admit there are some people who believe some things Robert does, but that is immaterial. We are in a debate, and in a debate the only thing that matters are logical arguments that are biblically based.
The same thing goes for citing people like Mike Willis. If he thinks citing Mike Willis is somehow authoritative with me, or that I will defend Willis, or believe something that Willis believes just because Willis teaches it, he has another think coming. Again, this debate is not about persons, it is about the scriptures and what they teach. Let’s have a few more arguments, and a few less quotations from non biblical writers.
The lengthy discussion concerning Jewish women and the fact some Jewish men refused to divorce them, but simply separated, is likewise immaterial to the debate. Robert assumes this is the case Jesus is discussing in Matthew 19:9 and parallel passages, but as we have already shown from Mark 10:2-5 that is not the case. Consequently this material is immaterial to a proposition that affirms all divorced people may marry another.
I will not answer questions based upon the false premise that two men can “marry” one another. While such may be possible under civil law, it is not possible under divine law. Again, this is not the issue we are discussing. If Robert wants to affirm such unions are scriptural marriages I will sign a proposition with him to discuss the issue.
I reaffirm what I said in answer to his question about Herod and Herodias and the hypothetical situation in which someone murders his wife in order that he may marry another—people who do this commit adultery in the second relationship. Again, we must not just go by the letter of the law, but by its spirit and intent. Having said this, this is all I will say on the subject in this discussion. It is not the issue before us at this time, and I will not allow it and Robert’s inability to see the authority for it to cloud the issue.
I brought up Deuteronomy 24 in my last negative. My point in doing so was to demonstrate that it did not authorize marriage to another, but that it simply says when one is divorced and marries another then the first spouse cannot take the remarried partner back. I pointed to the NASV and several other translations that demonstrate this is the proper translation of Deuteronomy 24. That point has not been addressed. Yes, he attacked the NASV, but he did not address the basic point that Deuteronomy 24 does not authorize marriage to another, nor did he, nor will he be able to discredit the other translations. This being the case an important element of Robert’s proposition is destroyed--that element is Robert’s assumption that God authorizes all divorced people to marry another.
Robert has a lot to say about divorce, and it is a bit on the schizophrenic side. He complains I have misrepresented him by saying his proposition advocates that one can divorce and marry another without sin. When I said that my emphasis was on the “marry another without sin.” However, the reader will remember that I told you that due to the fact he didn’t give us a solid affirmative in his first paper that he would come back and charge me with misrepresenting him, didn’t I? Nevertheless, we will take him at his word—he believes divorce is wrong, but that all divorced people may marry another.
(Gentle reader, wrap your minds around the word all.)
Having said that, Robert makes some pretty far out statements on this issue. He says the marriage covenant is basically like any other, and gives an example wherein he and I agree to engage in a series of debates, but later back out of the agreement. I hope he misspoke in this case, and that he really doesn’t believe the marriage covenant is this weak, and that divorce is this inconsequential. Whether he did or not, I say that his position on remarriage encourages divorce, and makes it without any real consequence, and is detrimental to the well being of the marriage institution.
At one point in my last paper I said that “divorce is a dreadful sin in the sight of God, and marriages in which divorced people have married another encourage this evil.” Robert responds by saying, “My friend, you are completely wrong about divorce being a dreadful sin.” Later he wrote, “My opponent espouses a doctrine that takes away the God given right of divorce.” Is it any wonder that he charges me with misrepresentation when he himself flip-flops around like this?
Yes, Robert, I know that God permits divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts. That simply means that God does not desire divorce, but He realizes that because of sin sometimes divorces will take place. He prescribes that divorced people should remain unmarried, or else be reconciled in such cases. I honestly don’t see how a divorce can take place between two people without at least one of them having sinned when it is the first marriage for both.
During this part of the discussion he charges, “…Jack’s reasoning, in trying to prove his proposition, a covenant cannot be dissolved.” First of all Robert, I don’t have a proposition in this debate, I am in the negative. Second of all, I am arguing the marriage covenant should not be dissolved, not that it cannot be dissolved. Finally, I am arguing that when a marriage covenant is dissolved by a divorce, the two remain bound (i.e., obligated) to divine law, and divine law commands them to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
In his first paper Robert asked me if the apostle Paul taught that every man could have his own wife. I answered that “yes, every man may have one wife, but that he could not have another.” Robert comes back and pretends that I was talking about polygamy. He knows better, and so does the reader. When I spoke of “another wife” here I am talking about marrying another woman after divorcing one. My point was, and is, that Paul taught every man could have one wife, not that every man could divorce and have another.
The last refuge of every false teacher is emotional appeals. Robert engages in these freely. He asserts my position “punishes” people, causes them to suffer, and deprives them of a sexual partner. At one point he goes so far as to question my convictions and to assert that should my wife leave me that my needs would soon force me to “realize just how ‘not good’ it is for a man to be alone.” I understand that divorce has terrible consequences, and that people suffer. However, we cannot look to these for authority to marry another. We must look to the scriptures; and when we see that God says that divorced people must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled, and that should they marry another they are committing adultery, we must be willing to sacrifice for the glory of God and the protection of the institution of marriage. Many are persuaded by such emotional appeals, but thinking individuals will not be.
The reader will be struck at how short this response is in comparison to Robert’s article (8 pages versus 71). The simple reason for that is that I am dealing with the issue and Robert is casting a wide net in an effort to cloud the issue and draw me into debating any and every thing. I simply will not do it. The reader can sort through Robert’s material, and when he has done so and carefully listed the arguments that address the proposition Robert has signed to affirm then the reader will see that I have more than done my job in the negative.
I await the third negative.
Jack Holt
aka Ahnog
http://www.ahnog.us
http://www.whiteparkchurchofchrist.org
The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced persons are "unbound" and may marry another.
Affirm: Robert Waters. Deny: Jack Holt.
Greetings to my opponent and to all who are interested in this discussion of this most important matter:
Jack wrote: Gentle reader, please do not be overwhelmed by Brother Waters' reply. I realize it is verbose, and stretches on to 71 pages, and that as a result some will simply throw up their hands and walk away convinced the subject is too difficult to understand. But I assure you there are really only a few arguments made that truly address the proposition, and that I shall be brief in comparison, but thoroughly refute them in this negative.
Robert:
I want to remind the reader that I wanted the debate to be limited to the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor. 7. I noted that if Jesus' teachings are were brought in by my opponent the debate would then become much more involved. Nevertheless, no prospective debaters were confident enough that they could show that the apostle Paul taught their doctrine if they were not able to use their errant but widely accepted idea of what Jesus said to support it. Thus, I agreed there would be no such limitations. Of course, Jack did just as I predicted.
But after I showed that his doctrine is based upon a misunderstanding of what Jesus taught and I went into great detail explaining the text, Jack wants to revert back to my original proposal to stay with the issue - what Paul taught. He said, "…I am dealing with the issue and Robert is casting a wide net in an effort to cloud the issue and draw me into debating any and every thing. I simply will not do it." But Jack, it is too late! Once you said you would not be limited by what Paul taught in the chapter and the debate started you are responsible to deal with all the arguments I have made, even those that refute your idea of what Jesus taught. When you used the teaching of Jesus as support for your idea that Paul taught the same thing you say He taught, it then became your responsibility to deal with and refute every argument that I made in that area of the discussion. There is certainly something to be said about conciseness. However, this is a debate and each of the proponents in a debate is responsible to answer all the relevant arguments. If you continue to assert that the things I addressed are not relevant the reader will not be persuaded nor impressed with your efforts.
Once Jack introduced Matthew 19:9 into this discussion the key issue in the divorce and remarriage controversy, as I see it, has involved the use of "put away" (apoluo) as to whether it means divorce or a separation. And, interestingly enough, it is the same issue in Paul's teachings because 1 Corinthians 7:11 is misused by my opponent to try to prove that a divorced couple is under consideration, which must be proved to convince the reader that Paul really did not say what is apparent in verses 2, 8,9, and 27,28. I presented numerous arguments and evidences to support my position on the meaning of "put away," as used in Matthew 19:9 but my opponent has completely ignored most of them.
My concern in this debate is not to follow debate etiquette to the letter, or to beat my opponent, but to help the reader to see what is true and right, regarding who is eligible for marriage, and to encourage you to then teach and practice it. Jack is a much more experienced debater than I so we can assume that he has not forgotten about the rule regarding waiting until the last installment to make arguments (adding new material). Thus, I must state that this debate will end after Jack's reply unless he presents material that I think is new material or needs to be answered. If I respond then Jack will have the last word.
Jack wrote:
"But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife," (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 NASB).
In my first negative I offered two negative arguments. I argued first that 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 instructed divorced people to "remain unmarried, or else be reconciled" and that therefore when Brother Waters goes to other portions of 1 Corinthians 7 which are addressed to other unmarried people, and which say that those unmarried people may marry, that he is ignoring the context. In response Brother Waters simply says these people are not divorced, but are merely separated.
Robert:
Brethren, I showed that it was Jack that was ignoring the context. I provided various comments from highly respected commentators, including Robertson and Bloomfield, who clearly understood the CONTEXT of verse 10-11, to be about mere separation. Jack says there was no argument offered. That is not true. Bloomfield said it was clear from the "air of the context" that the couple was not legally divorced because of the word katallasso, which had to do with reconciliation rather than marriage. He presented the Greek and as best I can tell it had reference to reconciliation. This was an argument. Furthermore, I pressed the argument regarding the fact that people who are only separated need to reconcile but people who are divorced need to marry. This evidently presented a real problem for Jack because he just ignored it and continued to assert that his argument is sound, because of the context, but that mine was not. Even though Jack argued that context was in his favor he, just as I predicted, continued to press his only argument based on the rendering of the word agamos, as seen in most translations. His whole position is based upon the assumption that agamos means exactly the same thing in verse 11 that it means in verses 8, 9, 27, 28. He admitted that word can have a different meaning and smugly noted that stating such would come back to bite me. But it has not. Jack is simply doing like the preachers who over and over assert that John 3:16 teaches salvation at the point of faith while refusing to hear the plea to use biblical hermeneutics to properly understand the text. The only difference is that Jack SAYS his argument is supported by the context and is harmonious with all other scripture. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the passage Jack uses to support his doctrine is an obscure passage and he errantly attempts to twist very plain scripture to harmonize with his theory.
Jack presented various versions on verse 11. Note the one from the NASB:"(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband)…"
Please consider the meaning of the word "leave." If Jack were to say that his wife left him it just means she is not with him, i.e., there was a separation. What if someone who does not know the meaning of the word "leave" (or the past tense of it) begins to spread it around that Jack's wife divorced him? It would be a lie, wouldn't it, Jack?
Would those who spread that message be guilty of gossip? Who would be responsible for the miscommunication? Obviously, Jack and others who insist that every word that basically means "separation" means "divorce" contribute to such confusion and miscommunication.
Jack:
Robert's argument on 1 Corinthians 7 is that verses 8 and 9 give all unmarried people the right to marry, including granting people who are unmarried by virtue of divorce the right to marry another. This ignores the fact that in verses 10 and 11 Paul speaks to people who are married and tells them to stay that way, and then tells them that if they do divorce (i.e., become unmarried) they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled. The truth is so simple, isn't it?
Robert:
I made various arguments from the context showing that it was impossible that the couple in verse 11 were married. Jack did not quote anything from me on it. I guess he thought it best that the reader not see it again.
Jack:
One cannot apply a general statement to a class of people when more specific statements concerning their class exist. The specific statements should be used to limit and define the general statements. In this case, verses 10 and 11 make it clear that verses 8 and 9 are addressed to the never married and to widows, and that divorced people should look to verses 10 and 11 to understand their obligations before God.
Robert:
The "general statement" that Jack is talking about is the clear command to let the unmarried marry. The specific statement that he alludes to is not a statement that could possibly contradict the clear statement. The "specific matter" is specific but there is no justification for rejecting the context and making the assumption that "unmarried" (in that immediate context) literally means that one has legally divorced. Again, as Bloomfield pointed out, the mention of the need for "reconciliation" is clear evidence from the context that a legal divorce is not part of the equation.
Jack:
In 1 Corinthians 7:10 Paul emphasizes that what he taught there was the Lord's teaching. Robert tells us we assume that Paul is referring to Matthew 19:9 and its parallels, and that the assumption is unwarranted. Robert is simply wrong. When one studies Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11, 12 and their parallels one sees immediately that Jesus teaches against divorce and that He teaches against marriage to another after a divorce.
>Robert:
Indeed, it is supposition to conclude that Paul referred to Matthew 19:9, yet my opponent insists it is not so. I went into detail explaining how Jesus was dealing with a different situation - the Jews who were often guilty of merely putting away. I showed that such was the understanding of men with a noted reputation for conservative sound teaching and I presented a documentary that was evidence that the "putting away," without divorce papers, is still being practiced and that it is still a problem for women in the Jewish community today. What kind of evidence does my opponent require before he will believe?
Jack:
The Second Negative Argument In my second negative argument I defined what a marriage is, what a divorce is, and what it means to be bound. I demonstrated from the Bible that when two divorce they enter an unmarried state, yet they continue to be bound (i.e., under obligation to God and His law) to "remain unmarried, or else be reconciled." I also showed from Jesus' teaching, and from Paul's teaching in Romans 7, that those who marry another in spite of this bond commit adultery when they do so.
What did my opponent say about this argument? Here is what he said: "My opponent has admitted that divorced persons are unmarried, but he holds the absurd position that they are nevertheless still bound. It does not matter how many people agree with and give their support to Jack, that position is still absurd." Gentle reader, this is not an adequate response. Ridicule does not answer an argument.
Robert:
If that was all I said it would certainly not be adequate, but it was far from all I said. Remember there were over 70 pages in the installment. If you read the material you know I dealt specifically with Jack's proof texts. He reasserts what he previously said but did not deal with my explanation of the texts. I showed that he misused them. What does he do? He quotes them again, evidently thinking that proves his case. Remember the Baptist preacher and John 3:16? Jack's response was to focus only on my noting the absurdity of his position and to classify that statement as "ridicule." I still maintain that it is absurd to contend that unmarried persons can be bound, but it is not and never was intended as ridicule.
Jack (Rom. 7:2-3):
The force of this passage is that when two marry they are bound for life-as long as they both live. They may, as Paul demonstrates in 1 Corinthians 7:11, become unmarried, but they continue to be bound
(i.e., obligated by God and His law) to each other and therefore must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
Robert:
I showed the context of the passage noted above and noted various difficulties that Jack faces in using it to teach that marriage is not ended by divorce. I specifically noted that he believes in divorce and that if he made the proper application it condemns his own belief. Jack made no response.
Jack:
Robert states that "one cannot be loosed and bound at the same time. This is an obvious contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, my opponent's entire proposition is based upon that ridiculous assumption." He is simply wrong about this. Certainly one cannot be loosed and bound in the same sense at the same time, but one can be loosed from a marriage by divorce, yet bound (obligated) by God to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
Robert:
I really tried to understand Jack's reasoning, above, but it just does not make sense. Jack admits, "Certainly one cannot be loosed and bound in the same sense at the same time.…" Well, that was my point. But he continues: "…But one can be loosed from a marriage by divorce, yet bound (obligated) by God to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled."
Jack contradicts the admission he just made when he completes his sentence. Then he uses circular reasoning in his effort to prove that what he just said is not true. Jack must first prove that the words "remain unmarried" proves the couple referred to in the text were actually divorced. He has not done that and I have provided ample sound reasoning and other evidence that the couple were merely separated.
Jack:
While making this argument I cited Jesus' statements in Mark 10:11, 12 and Matthew 19:9 which teach that those who divorce and marry another commit adultery in the second marriage. Robert asserts Jesus is not talking about divorce in these passages, but that he is talking about a mere separation. He asserts that the phrase "put away" does not refer to divorce, but a separation. Gentle reader, Robert is playing word games with us. In the English language we use many terms to speak of divorce. I might say one has "left his wife" and in the proper context everyone knows I am speaking of a divorce. Or, I might say that one has "departed" from his wife, and again in the proper context everyone would know that I am talking about a divorce. Yes, in some contexts these terms might refer to a separation, but we cannot argue that because they can refer to a separation, that in every case they are referring to a separation.
Robert:
Robert is not playing word games. As I discussed previously, "left" does not mean divorce. Indeed, people would be uncertain what was being communicated in the case above but it is because of men misusing the text in their writings, and it is sometimes deliberate.
Jack:
That is what Robert is doing here. He is saying that there are contexts in which the term "put away" might refer to a mere separation, and then he is asserting that is the case in Matthew 19:9 and its parallels. In so doing he is ignoring the context. When a context speaks of "marrying another" it implies that a marriage first existed to one, and that marriage is now over as a result of a divorce and a second marriage is being entered into.
Robert:
I have been unable to find any evidence that "put away" refers to anything other than a separation in any context regarding marriage. I most certainly have not ignored the context. I have placed great significance on the need to study the context of both Jesus' teaching and Paul's teaching. My opponent plays lip service to the concept but that is all.
Jack:
Robert lists several dictionaries and notes that none of them define "put away" as divorce. As I said above, context must define what a word means.
Robert:
In the case involving the scripture one can tell from both "context" and the "meaning" of the word itself, as translated by the most respected scholars, that "put away" or "send away" is only part of what constitutes a legal divorce - the part that involves, well, what it says, "sending away." The text does not indicate that a legal divorce is the point in question. The fact that people have misunderstood and perceived such terms to apply to divorce, and consequently misused them, making their speech unclear, does nothing to help my opponent in the least.
Jack:
Besides all this, Robert knows, and has acknowledged, that lexicons like Thayer and Strong define "putting away" as "divorce." Consequently, all of his dictionary citations are evasions of the issue, and attempts to snow the reader by false appeals to supposed authorities.
Robert:
I also noted that these men were all of Catholic background and divorce is not first on the list, but in fact way down the list. This is significant. At the time these works were done it may well have already become a common practice of people to speak of "put away" as divorce because of their misunderstanding of the text. I have seen the phrase "used of divorce in Matt. 1:19." In my first article I noted that Joseph and Mary were not married at the time Joseph thought to put her away. Thus, it is impossible that "put away" meant he had thoughts of divorcing her. So, apoluo was not "used of divorce' even in that one instance. When Joseph thought Mary had been with another man his thought was to "apoluo" (repudiate), which would be to end the relationship. And it would have been privately, rather than publicly, as is the case in a divorce.
Jack:
In the process of making his arguments, however, Robert really answered himself. He cited Mark 10:2-5 where the Bible says, "And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, 'Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?' trying him. And he answered and said unto them, 'What did Moses command you?' And they said, 'Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away,'" (Mark 10:2-4 ASV). When Robert cited this he argued that the bill of divorcement is the divorce, and that "put her away" cannot be the divorce because you would have Jesus in essence saying "divorce your wives and to divorce them."
What Robert misses here is that the bill of divorcement is not the entirety of the divorce, but is only one element of it. Robert asserted in his last affirmative, and I agree, that a divorce under the Old Law involved writing a bill of divorcement, putting it in her hand, and then sending her out of the house (or what is called in this text "put her away.") This entire process was the divorce, and therefore when Jesus cites the last step (the putting away) He has in mind the entire process of divorce! Consequently, Robert's own text demonstrates Jesus is talking about a divorce in Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11, 12! Jesus is in fact making a synecdochical statement-citing a part (i.e., the putting away) when the whole is intended (the bill, the placing it in her hand, and the putting away).
Robert:
Brethren, I have established from the use of several Old Testament passages that the thing that God hates is a man "putting away," which is only part of the divorce. I showed that there was indeed such a practice taking place and that it is being done to this day. My opponent dealt with none of those passages. The text I used (Matt. 19:9) does not demonstrate that Jesus is dealing with divorce, but to the contrary - separation and marriage, resulting in what would then obviously occur: adultery. I have fully explained the text already and refer you to it. But I do want to note that Jesus confirmed that what Moses stated regarding the entire process of divorce, as properly noted by my opponent, was a command. This presents a real problem for Jack because that statement shows that the context is exactly what I have been saying was the reason for Jesus' response - putting away but not completing the divorce to free the woman to marry another.
Jack:
Robert tripped over himself in another instance on this issue as well. At one point in his second affirmative he offered us his own paraphrase of Matthew 19:9. Remember, he doesn't believe the term "put away" there refers to a divorce, but that it refers to a mere separation. Here is the paraphrase he offered us…
"Whoever shall send his wife out of the house and marry another, commits adultery, unless he sent her away because of "fornication," which is being committed because of the illicit relationship."
Now, since Robert says he believes "put away" refers to a "mere separation," let's put that into his paraphrase and see what he is saying.
"Whoever shall separate and marry another, commits adultery, unless he separates because of "fornication," which is being committed because of the illicit relationship."
Do you see the problem? He is saying one may merely separate, and marry another if fornication is involved! That is the force of the exception statement as he has written it! Remember, he denies the word refers to a divorce, so the force of the exception clause is that one may merely separate and marry another! This is the kind of trouble one gets in when he takes a ridiculous position and denies the obvious. The obvious is that "put away" in this passage refers to a divorce.
Robert:
Surely Jack would not have made the above argument if he had carefully read my explanation of the "exception clause." First, what I said in no way means that one MAY separate from his legal spouse and marry another. My explanation of the exception clause was that if one does separate he commits adultery if he marries another, but he does not so do if the marriage was illegal, such as in the case of incest or one having married a wife from among the people in the land of Canaan.
I even provided an example of two men marrying who thought it was legal because a judge approved it, but that the Supreme Court said it was not legal. I noted that they did not need to get a divorce but to just separate, which would be true in any situation where "fornication" was being committed. Jack just had a flippant response to it and failed to understand or to note the point. This case really happened and I heard a DJ on the radio say they did not need to get a divorce. And certainly what they did does not disqualify them from marrying in the future should they decide to go straight. This is the situation the exception clause is applicable to and I showed, by my opponent's misuse of the word "fornication," that such must be the case. His position is that persons who commit adultery can be divorced by their spouse for fornication (actually adultery, as claimed) but the text he uses to support it does not fit the scenario. My explanation of the text does not have the problems that we see inherent in my opponent's position.
Let us now note Jack's response and then I will comment on the matter some more:
Jack:
I will not answer questions based upon the false premise that two men can "marry" one another. While such may be possible under civil law, it is not possible under divine law. Again, this is not the issue we are discussing. If Robert wants to affirm such unions are scriptural marriages I will sign a proposition with him to discuss the issue.
Robert:
I just want to provide the quote (above) so you can look at it again. Note how he not only evaded the argument completely but that he actually used what I said to insinuate that I might believe the "marriage" of the two men (as to whether it was scriptural) was something debatable.
Jack's response:
"In connection with that, I will not be drawn into a discussion in this debate concerning the definition of the word "immorality" and how it relates to the issue of divorce and marriage to another. For the time being I will simply state that I don't believe that mere lust justifies divorce and marriage to another."
Robert:
This is a debate tactic that I do not recall seeing used before. If your opponent presents you with a conundrum that you cannot answer you just say you will not be drawn into a discussion on the matter. No limit has been placed on the number of words either of us may use in this debate. So there is no justification for not answering the argument here. When I sent each of my affirmatives to the list with a CC to Jack it was late in the evening. Jack was finished responding to the first one by 2:00 a.m. He had completed the second when I checked the mail the next morning. Therefore, I don't buy his statement that this is not something he should be drawn into and that it should be the subject of another debate. Jack, I presented you with a conundrum that is applicable to this discussion and you have a duty to deal with it to the best of your ability.
Jack used the NASB to support his position. I presented some information about the version that indicates it is far inferior to the ASV that does not translate words that merely relate to divorce as "divorce," as does the NASB. I also noted things that should be considered as a red flag. What was his response? Note below:
"I simply will not be drawn into a discussion in this debate concerning the reliability of the NASV. It is recognized generally as reliable, I have used it as my primary translation in my preaching and teaching for the last 27 years because I believe it to be reliable, and that is all I have to say in this debate about the matter.
Jack:
Neither will I get drawn into debating what commentators believe. Citing commentators is legitimate when they make an argument applicable to the debate. However, in every citation that my opponent has made not a single one takes the position he does on divorce and marriage to another! Nor does any passage he cites from the commentaries make an argument. In every case Robert cites the commentary in an effort to prove that someone else believes some element he does, but not a single one of them makes an argument and tells us why they believe it.
Robert:
Jack says he will not be drawn into debating what commentators believe but then proceeds to assert that they do not believe what I believe. The thing that really stands out is Jack saying, "…Not a single one of them makes an argument and tells us why they believe it." That simply is not true. Note Bloomfield once again:
"From the use of [Greek for "reconcile," r.w.] and the air of the context it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not, arising from misunderstandings or otherwise."
So, there are TWO arguments in the above statement: 1) the use of the Greek word and the "air of the context." The argumentation in Bloomfield's statement is as good as any of Jack's arguments - maybe better.
Jack:
"The same thing goes for citing people like Mike Willis. If he thinks citing Mike Willis is somehow authoritative with me, or that I will defend Willis, or believe something that Willis believes just because Willis teaches it, he has another think coming. Again, this debate is not about persons, it is about the scriptures and what they teach. Let's have a few more arguments, and a few less quotations from non biblical writers."
Robert:
Mike Willis is a noted scholar. I have in my library a commentary on Corinthians and it is a decent commentary. People have asserted that I was the only one in the world that was contending that the Jews were guilty of putting away but not fully divorcing. Presenting the quote from Mike not only proves their contention to be false but also helps the reader to have a better understanding of the passage. My opponent rejects the idea of Mike being in any way authoritative but would have the reader accept his statements even though they are not as logical and believable, in view of the context.
Jack:
The lengthy discussion concerning Jewish women and the fact some Jewish men refused to divorce them, but simply separated, is likewise immaterial to the debate.
Robert:
Surely Jack can see that the material concerning Jewish women substantiates my case that Jewish men were merely "putting away" and not divorcing. Nevertheless, he states that is immaterial in this debate, but he evidently thinks that is true just on the basis of the fact that it conflicts with his assumptions and conclusion, which makes one wonder if his standard is his position and practice. Brethren, this is simply more circular reasoning.
Jack:
I reaffirm what I said in answer to his question about Herod and Herodias and the hypothetical situation in which someone murders his wife in order that he may marry another-people who do this commit adultery in the second relationship. Again, we must not just go by the letter of the law, but by its spirit and intent. Having said this, this is all I will say on the subject in this discussion. It is not the issue before us at this time, and I will not allow it and Robert's inability to see the authority for it to cloud the issue.
Robert:
In my previous installment I noted that Jack apparently misread the question and therefore misspoke. I also showed from the case of David that one does not commit adultery by marrying someone loosed due to murder. Nevertheless, Jack tries to defend his doctrine by continuing (despite the evidence) to assert that, "people who do this commit adultery in the second relationship." Jack, you hurt your credibility greatly with your response on this. What you said contradicts your own application of Rom. 7:2-3.
Jack:
I brought up Deuteronomy 24 in my last negative. My point in doing so was to demonstrate that it did not authorize marriage to another, but that it simply says when one is divorced and marries another then the first spouse cannot take the remarried partner back. I pointed to the NASV and several other translations that demonstrate this is the proper translation of Deuteronomy 24. That point has not been addressed. Yes, he attacked the NASV, but he did not address the basic point that Deuteronomy 24 does not authorize marriage to another, nor did he, nor will he be able to discredit the other translations. This being the case an important element of Robert's proposition is destroyed--that element is Robert's assumption that God authorizes all divorced people to marry another.
Robert:
Jack seems to have forgotten that I first appealed to the reader to accept the ASV's rendering of the text, which is considered by virtually all to be the most accurate, literal and reliable version. Second, I discussed the context and pointed out that regardless of which rendering of the passage is correct the context indicated that the women who were given the divorce were released. I pointed out that the names of the scholars of the NASB are unavailable. I then asked, "How can you be expected to believe someone whose name you are not given and about whom you know nothing?" Jack says he will not be drawn into a discussion of versions regardless of the fact that their accuracy is vital to our knowing what the scriptures actually say.
Jack: Robert has a lot to say about divorce, and it is a bit on the schizophrenic side. He complains I have misrepresented him by saying his proposition advocates that one can divorce and marry another without sin. When I said that my emphasis was on the "marry another without sin." However, the reader will remember that I told you that due to the fact he didn't give us a solid affirmative in his first paper that he would come back and charge me with misrepresenting him, didn't I? Nevertheless, we will take him at his word-he believes divorce is wrong, but that all divorced people may marry another.
Robert:
I very much appreciate that my opponent has set the record straight. However, there really was no excuse for making that charge, even if he thought it was true, without first asking me to verify it, especially in view of the fact that I had emphasized my position on this very matter and provided scripture to support it.
Jack:
(Gentle reader, wrap your minds around the word all.)
Robert:
It appears that Jack wants to prejudice the reader because I used the word "all" in the proposition: "…All divorced persons are unbound.…" I fail to see anything repugnant about the entire proposition that I have affirmed. Paul said, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let EVERY man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." The word "all" means the same thing as the word "every." Is there something schizophrenic or repugnant about what I said? It is the same thing that Paul said.
Jack:
Having said that, Robert makes some pretty far out statements on this issue. He says the marriage covenant is basically like any other, and gives an example wherein he and I agree to engage in a series of debates, but later back out of the agreement. I hope he misspoke in this case, and that he really doesn't believe the marriage covenant is this weak, and that divorce is this inconsequential. Whether he did or not, I say that his position on remarriage encourages divorce, and makes it without any real consequence, and is detrimental to the well being of the marriage institution.
Robert:
I did not misspeak. A covenant is a covenant and the fact that many brethren have imposed celibacy upon both the innocent and the guilty who are involved in the breaking of the marriage covenant should not be considered as evidence that a marriage covenant cannot be completely ended by divorce. There are consequences for breaking a covenant; nevertheless when it is broken, and no longer exists, it is absurd to argue that either or both parties are still bound by it in any way. I fail to see how breaking up legal/scriptural marriages and imposing celibacy is something that strengthens the marriage institution in any way. When a marriage is dead most are going to divorce and eventually marry another. Jack's false doctrine will cause many of these people to reject Christ. If they are already in the church many will either find another church or will be caused to give up completely.
Jack:
At one point in my last paper I said that "divorce is a dreadful sin in the sight of God, and marriages in which divorced people have married another encourage this evil." Robert responds by saying, "My friend, you are completely wrong about divorce being a dreadful sin." Later he wrote, "My opponent espouses a doctrine that takes away the God given right of divorce." Is it any wonder that he charges me with misrepresentation when he himself flip-flops around like this?
Robert:
There was no flip-flop. In my previous installment I showed that it is not divorce that God said he hates but "putting away." I noted that God actually divorced and I made various points which I backed up with scripture. But the above is all that my opponent has said about it. Indeed, my opponent's doctrine takes away the God given right of divorce. Remember the points I made about divorce being a COMMAND? Jack does not want to go there. He avoids the facts completely and therefore fails to understand the very passage on which his entire doctrine is based.
Jack:
Yes, Robert, I know that God permits divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts. That simply means that God does not desire divorce, but He realizes that because of sin sometimes divorces will take place.
Robert:
Since you believe that "put away" means divorce how do you explain the fact that the actual divorce, consisting of three parts, was a command? Explain how this harmonizes with your assertion that divorce was what was permitted.
Jack:
The last refuge of every false teacher is emotional appeals. Robert engages in these freely. He asserts my position "punishes" people, causes them to suffer, and deprives them of a sexual partner. At one point he goes so far as to question my convictions and to assert that should my wife leave me that my needs would soon force me to "realize just how 'not good' it is for a man to be alone." I understand that divorce has terrible consequences, and that people suffer. However, we cannot look to these for authority to marry another.
Robert:
I was not suggesting that you look to the substance of those remarks as authority to marry another. I was suggesting that you consider what you are doing, particularly that it is against not only the nature of God but is opposite that which God desires. I pointed out that those who are misusing scripture to teach that persons who have no marriage cannot have one, regardless of what you call it, are indeed "forbidding to marry" and therefore doing that which is classified as demonic (1 Tim. 4:1-3).
Jack:
We must look to the scriptures; and when we see that God says that divorced people must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled, and that should they marry another they are committing adultery, we must be willing to sacrifice for the glory of God and the protection of the institution of marriage. Many are persuaded by such emotional appeals, but thinking individuals will not be.
Robert:
Jack continues his quoting and misusing scriptures just like some Baptists do on John 3:16 while failing to apply proper hermeneutics in search for truth, which, if applied, would result in a completely different but correct understanding. Thinking individuals will consider all the facts and will not allow their minds to be prejudiced by comments that are designed to prevent learning.
Robert:
I can't speak for the readers but I was "struck" when I saw how much of my material Jack failed to address. After Jack appealed to Jesus' teaching, as I warned that he would when he saw he was not proving what he needed to prove, I showed the truth about what was Jesus' teaching. I showed that the concern of Jesus was over the same thing that had been a problem during Moses' day, which was the reason for the command in Deut. 24:1-4. I presented a considerable amount of evidence from various sources, including several Old Testament passages, but Jack barely acknowledged that I even went there.
Once again I present, not just one, but three passages that clearly support the proposition I have affirmed: "…that all divorced persons are "unbound" and may marry another. Read them carefully and imagine you are reading them for the first time. Understand, as my opponent has admitted, that a divorced person is "unmarried." Remember that "loosed" is defined as divorced and that since the word "bound" is used in contrast to "loosed" there can be no credence given to the theory that one "loosed" can still be bound. Remember the rules of hermeneutics that I presented previously. Note that Jack violates virtually every one of them, particularly the one pertaining to drawing a conclusion based upon an obscure passage rather than on the passages that are clear. Brethren, the passages below are very clear. If you had just obeyed the gospel and the evangelist asks questions and found that you had been divorced, do you think he could convince you that you must bust up your marriage and live celibate if you were familiar with the passages below? Add to these the teaching regarding the idea of "forbidding to marry" being "doctrines of devils" and ask yourself, would I believe this doctrine I'm being taught? If the evangelist had just told you that you must remain celibate the rest of your life because you already had a wife, who divorced you and married another, but that you were still bound to her, would you buy it? If someone happened to walk in and join the conversation and showed you what Jesus' teaching really was about and that the contexts of the evangelist's proof text (both Matt. 19:9 and 1 Cor. 7:11), did not even involve divorce would you take the drastic action that the evangelist insists you must do?
1 Cor. 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Cor. 7:8, 9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1Co 7:27, Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Brethren, I am appealing to your emotions but that is not deserving of ridicule, as has come from Jack. You must have feelings for the truth and those affected by this horrible doctrine that Jack teaches, which is opposed to truth and which serves only the devil. If you are not inclined to completely reject this evil doctrine the least you could do would be to truly present divorced persons with the other side of this issue and let them make up their own mind. Please do not jeopardize their soul, and your own, by demanding they remain celibate contrary to the will of God who says, "Let them marry."
I appreciate the good attitude that Jack has shown in this discussion and the way he has conducted himself not only here but in our private correspondence. Unless Jack presents new material this will probably be my last installment in this discussion.
Jack has presented two arguments to support his teachings. I presented numerous arguments using numerous passages, which not only support my position but show his to be error. I feel strongly that the evidence to support my proposition is overwhelming. The proposition I have affirmed is reasonable, logical, allows God to be seen as fair and just, does not have serious unacceptable consequences, and is hermeneutically sound. I wish the best for my opponent and hope to debate other propositions with him in the future.
Below my signature are some of the things that Jack did not deal with at all. Perhaps he will see fit to answer in his next article.
Brotherly,
RobertWaters@yahoo.com
Robert Waters
"From the use of [Greek, "reconciliation," rw] and the air of the context it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not, arising from misunderstandings or otherwise." (Bloomfield)
Robertson: "If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she get separated"? Why do you suppose Robertson did not say divorce? Do you think he thought a divorce and a separation were the same thing? As with Bloomfield, Robertson understood the context.
We also agree that one who marries one that was "put away" would commit adultery. That is what the text says and that conclusion is supported by sound hermeneutical principles. (Thus, it is important that we focus on the meaning of APOLUO from which is derived the phrase "put away.")
I maintain that until one does what Moses commanded, any couple is still married, thus they would commit adultery in marrying another. Jack, do you agree?
In the context of Matt. 19:9, it appears that the Pharisees' first question directed to Jesus was about "putting away," with no implication of thoughts of actually ending a dead marriage in a legal and scriptural way. But, when the command of Moses is mentioned they answer with both "put away" and "bill of divorcement."
It seems plausible that Jesus went back to their original question about "putting away" without the "bill of divorcement" and that He made His succeeding comments with such in mind.
Ezr 10:11 - Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.
There was no command to divorce those women. Why? They were not legal marriages. The relationships were not pleasing to God and simply needed to be ended.
Question: Jack, if a judge performs the marriage ceremony for two men do they need to get a divorce, should they repent, if the State Supreme Court later says the marriage was not legal?
2) Do you believe that an immoral act committed by a man allows the woman to scripturally divorce him?
"…The Jews did commonly divorce and those divorced, under the Law, who married were not charged with adultery. The marriages were accepted as legitimate scriptural marriages. My opponent seeks to convince you that Jesus did teach that those who divorced and married committed adultery, but his argument is based upon faulty translations, scholars who either lied or just did not know the truth, circular reasoning and numerous assumptions. It can be concluded with certainty that the Pharisees did not understand Jesus to have contradicted the teachings of Moses as found in Deut. 24. This fact utterly destroys Jack's proposition .
The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced people are "unbound" and may marry another. Affirm: Robert Waters. Deny: Jack Holt.
Gentle readers, Brother Waters, I am thank you for your continued interest in this discussion, and for this opportunity to appear in the negative and to explain why I believe Brother Water's proposition is in error, and what I believe the Bible teaches on this subject.
In my first negative I presented two negative arguments. I want to begin my final paper by reviewing those arguments and Brother Water's latest replies to them.
"But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife," (1Corinthians 7:10-11 NASV).
I argued from this passage that God's will is for divorced people to remain unmarried, or else to be reconciled; and that brother Water's fundamental error in this debate is that he takes passages addressed to the never married and to widows and tries to apply them to divorced people. Paul writes.
"But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion," (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).
If this had been all that Paul wrote and if we did not have Jesus' teaching on the subject then Brother Waters might have an argument. However, after making this general statement Paul writes the versus we cited at the beginning instructing people who are married to remain married, and that should divorce take place for them to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. We must allow specific instructions to limit more general ones. In this case Paul made a general statement to the unmarried that they were free to marry, but then he talks to married people who enter an unmarried state and tells them to "remain unmarried, or else be reconciled." Since divorce is the only means whereby married people who are living can enter into an unmarried state the passage is clearly talking about a divorce.
Brother Waters has attempted to get around this plain and simple passage by saying the two are not really divorced or unmarried, but they are separated and living "as unmarried" people. Gentile reader, you can read for yourself. You know that is not right, and there is no translation that states the two are merely separated. The clear implication is that a divorce has taken place and left two formerly married people unmarried, and God has a message for people in that situation-"remain unmarried, or else be reconciled." That being the case, Brother Water's position that "all divorced persons are 'unbound' and may marry another" is false.
Robert once again refers to the commentators Bloomfield and Robertson, but I do not see that they add anything to the discussion. Instead of dealing with my arguments Robert has cited commentators who do not share his position on divorce and remarriage and attempted to negate what I have said by simply saying "they agree with me that 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 refers to a separation rather than a divorce." Let's say they do, so what? I could list commentators at a 10 to 1 ratio who agree with me a divorce is what is being discussed. If the readers wanted to read the commentators they could do so, but they chose to read this debate because they were hoping we would make arguments to prove our respective views. Robert simply didn't do that. He stated what his view was and trotted out a commentary and that was it. He would have been far better off to have made an argument like I did.
Several times while reviewing my material Robert compares me to Baptist who cite John 3:16 over and over again. I fail to see the parallel. In that case they cite passages which condition salvation on belief and insist we should ignore passages that condition it on baptism. I have not made that kind of argument in this debate.
Now normally, I just ignore this kind of thing in a debate as I don't see anything productive coming from it. But in this case Robert makes this argument and then makes the following statement: "The only difference is that Jack SAYS his argument is supported by the context and is harmonious with all other scriptures. Nevertheless, the fact remain that the passage Jack uses to support his doctrine is an obscure passage and he errantly attempts to twist very plain scripture to harmonize with his theory."
Gentle reader, the passage Robert is calling "obscure" is 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11. I want you to read it again and ask yourself-"Is this passage obscure?" I think you will agree with me that it is not. It is very simple. It says that married people should remain that way, and that if they should enter an unmarried state that they should remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. What is obscure about that? I suggest that one can see that passage as being obscure only if he holds a position contradicted by it.
Again, while reviewing this argument Robert focuses on the word "leave" in the NASV of 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, and argues that the word cannot refer to a divorce. Gentile reader, have you ever heard anyone say about a divorced couple that one of them left the other? I know I have. This is a fundamental problem Robert seems to have. He is unable to understand that words can have broad meanings and that we must allow the context in which they are used to define them.
This fault can be seen again when he points to the word "reconcile" and argues that it cannot mean that two remarry. Again, gentle reader, I believe all of us know that in the proper context it is fitting and all together common to speak of people who divorce and get back together as having been "reconciled." Why Robert is unable to see how words are normally used I cannot explain.
Gentle reader, you must be the final judge, but I believe the first negative argument stands unanswered, and unanswerable. God's desire is that married people remain married, and that if they should divorce He commands that they should remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
My second negative argument defined what a marriage is, what a divorce is and what it means to be bound. I demonstrated from the Bible that when two divorce they enter an unmarried state, yet they continue to be bound (i.e., under obligation to God and His law) to "remain unmarried, or else be reconciled." I also showed from Jesus' teaching, and from Paul's teaching in Romans 7:2, 3, that those who marry in spite of this bond commit adultery in the second marriage.
In Robert's second affirmative he simply responded by saying it is absurd to maintain that unmarried people can be bound. I pointed out that was not a proper answer in a debate, and that when he signed the proposition he obligated himself to present arguments not merely ridicule the other side's position. Robert responds again by saying, "I still maintain that it is absurd to contend that unmarried people can be bound..." Robert says he made arguments that countered my argument, but I still cannot find any. Yes, he said a lot of things, but he didn't make a single argument which sets aside Jesus' and Paul's clear teaching.
"For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man," (Romans 7:2-3).
This passage teaches that married people are bound for life, that only death ends this bond, and that if they should divorce and marry another they commit adultery in the second relationship. I do not see any other logical conclusion than the one I have drawn.
In reviewing Romans 7:2, 3, Robert writes, "I showed the context of the passage noted above and noted various difficulties that Jack faces in using it to teach that marriage is not ended by divorce." Gentile reader, I never said marriage was not ended by divorce. I have clearly stated from the beginning that when two divorce they are unmarried. That is what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11. What I have argued is that although they are unmarried they are bound (under obligation) by God to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled; and that if they should marry another they commit adultery in the second relationship.
This statement by Robert shows that he has not grasped my argument, and that he is working from the assumption that I hold that divorced people are still really married. That simply is not the case and until Robert deals with the position that I actually hold he cannot possibly answer my position.
Robert continues his reply by quoting me and replying, and I believe his reply here really helps us to see the problem he is having and the problem with his position.
Jack Holt Wrote: Robert states that "one cannot be loosed and bound at the same time. This is an obvious contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, my opponent's entire proposition is based upon that ridiculous assumption." He is simply wrong about this. Certainly one cannot be loosed and bound in the same sense at the same time, but one can be loosed from a marriage by divorce, yet bound (obligated) by God to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. End Quote by Jack Holt.
Robert Responds: I really tried to understand Jack's reasoning, above, but it just does not make sense. Jack admits, "Certainly one cannot be loosed and bound in the same sense at the same time. " Well, that was my point. But he continues: "But one can be loosed from a marriage by divorce, yet bound (obligated) by God to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled."
Jack contradicts the admission he just made when he completes his sentence.
End Robert's Response.
This is very revealing. Robert is so convinced that I am saying that divorced people are still married that even when I explain it he simply cannot see it. What Robert must understand, and believe me he is not alone, what many brethren need to understand is that there is a difference between the idea of being married and the idea of being bound. The marriage is the covenant. Divorce ends the covenant and results in formerly married individuals entering an unmarried state. However, when people marry they are joined by more than the marriage covenant. They are also bound by divine obligations, and when divorce occurs they are not loosed from these obligations. Consequently Paul could write to divorced people, "remain unmarried, or be reconciled," and both Jesus and Paul could say to divorced persons that when you marry another you commit adultery. Here is the crux of the debate, and I don't mean to be unkind, but my opponent just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand my argument, much less is he capable of answering it.
Robert has not stressed this in the discussion, but in his closing he encourages the reader to "remember that 'loosed' is defined as divorced and that since the word 'bound' is used in contrast to 'loosed' there can be no credence given to the theory that one 'loosed' can be bound." Gentle reader, he is simply wrong in saying that loosed necessarily and always means divorced. The passage he is referring to is this one.
"Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife," (1 Corinthians 7:27).
Paul is using the term bound here exactly as I do. It is a broader term then the term "married," or the phrase "marriage covenant." People who are divorce are unmarried, but they are still bound to their mate by God's law that commands them to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. Hence the term bound here is broad enough to cover both married people, and people who are unmarried by virtue of divorce.
In contrast the term loosed refers to those who are not bound to a mate and thus cover people who have never been married, people whose mates have died, and people who have put away their mates because they were guilty of fornication.
Later on in his reply Robert made this statement.
Robert Waters Wrote: A covenant is a covenant and the fact that many brethren have imposed celibacy upon both the innocent and the guilty who are involved in the breaking of the marriage covenant should not be considered as evidence that a marriage covenant cannot be completely ended by divorce. There are consequences for breaking a covenant; nevertheless when it is broken, and no longer exists, it is absurd to argue that either or both parties are still bound by it in any way. I fail to see how breaking up legal/scriptural marriages and imposing celibacy is something that strengthens the marriage institution in any way. When a marriage is dead most are going to divorce and eventually marry another. Jack's false doctrine will cause many of these people to reject Christ. If they are already in the church many will either find another church or will be caused to give up completely. End Quote by Robert Waters.
There are several things here to observe. First of all, notice again that Robert simply doesn't understand the arguments I have made, and therefore certainly cannot answer them. Notice that he thinks I am arguing that the "marriage covenant cannot be completely ended by divorce." Either he didn't read my material carefully, or he is simply incapable of understanding it. Again, when two divorce the marriage covenant is completely ended. What I have been arguing is that two are bound by something more, and something other than the marriage covenant. This bond is God's will for married people. God's will for married people is that they stay married, but that if they do divorce (thus ending the marriage and the marriage covenant) they are obligated (i.e., bound) to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled; and due to this bond should they marry another they commit adultery in the second marriage. I say again, Robert cannot answer my argument if he doesn't understand it.
Robert says that if the marriage covenant is broken "it is absurd to argue that either or both parties are still bound by it in any way." Again, Robert demonstrates he has not understood my argument. When the marriage covenant is ended by a divorce the two cease to be bound by the marriage covenant--it is destroyed by the divorce. My argument has been that when two marry they are bound by something more than their marriage covenant. This bond is God's will for married people. God's will for married people is that they stay married, but that if they do divorce they are obligated to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to one another.
Robert then retreats to the emotional appeal in the quotation above by saying that he fails to see how celibacy protects the marriage institution. Again, I am not arguing for celibacy. I am arguing that divorced people should remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to one another. I'm sorry if Robert cannot see how strict divine law which discourages divorce and marriage to another protects the institution of marriage.
Robert then says, "When a marriage is dead most are going to divorce and eventually marry another." What Robert is arguing here is that we ought to do what most people do. Apparently he has forgotten Paul's instructions in Romans 12:1, 2, that we are not to be conformed to this world, but transformed by allowing God's will to rule in our hearts and in our lives.
Robert then says, ".Jack's false doctrine will cause many of these people to reject Christ. If they are already in the church many will either find another church or will be caused to give up completely.' Here Robert is appealing to what will get us the most members in our churches to determine what our view of divorce and remarriage ought to be. In fact, it is not my teaching that will cause people to reject Christ, but their own hardness of hearts in putting away their wives and marrying others.
What we are seeing here is a pattern. Robert is unable to see how the word "leave" might be used in a context to refer to a divorce. He is unable to see how the word bound refers to something other than being married. And he is unable to see how the word "reconcile" describes what two who have divorced do when they get back together and marry each other again.
He makes a similar mistake with the word "put away." I offered a great deal of material on that subject in my last article and quite frankly I see nothing new in Robert's material this time on it. To sum up, Jesus uses the phrase "put away" to refer to a divorce in Matthew 19:9 and its parallels, and teaches that divorce people (with one exception) who marry another commit adultery. Robert argues that "put away" refers to a mere separation and not a divorce. I presented ample material to answer that in my last negative, and don't believe he came close to answering that material. So I leave it and the issue in the reader's care.
Robert wrote in his last paper that, "In my previous installment I showed that is it not divorce that God said he hates but 'putting away.' I noted that God actually divorced and I made various points which I backed up with scripture." Remember, Robert's position is that "putting away" refers to a mere separation, so what he is saying here is that God hates separations but does not view divorce with that attitude. He ignores the fact that God put his people away for unfaithfulness (which is parallel to the exception Jesus cites in Matthew 19:9 and its parallels) and argues here that divorce generally is not as bad as separation. Believe it, IF YOU CAN.
In this last paper Robert quotes me and then replies.
Jack Holt Wrote: Yes, Robert, I know that God permits divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts. That simply means that God does not desire divorce, but He realizes that because of sin sometimes divorces will take place. End Jack Holt Quote.
Robert Waters Replied: Since you believe that "put away" means divorce how do you explain the fact that the actual divorce, consisting of three parts, was a command? Explain how this harmonizes with your assertion that divorce was what was permitted. End Robert Waters Reply.
I explained this in my last paper when I said, "What Robert misses here is that the bill of divorcement is not the entirety of the divorce, but is only one element of it. Robert asserted in his last affirmative, and I agree, that a divorce under the Old Law involved writing a bill of divorcement, putting it in her hand, and then sending her out of the house (or what is called in this text "put her away"). This entire process was the divorce, therefore when Jesus cites the last step (the putting away) He has in mind the entire process of divorce! Consequently, Robert's own text demonstrates Jesus is talking about a divorce in Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11, 12! Jesus is in fact making a synecdochical statement-citing a part (i.e., the putting away) when the whole is intended (the bill, the placing it in her hand, and the putting away)." Robert did not say a single word in response to this in his last article.
Once again Robert cites 1 Timothy 4:1-3 where the Bible classifies "forbidding to marry" as a doctrine of demons. I remind Robert again that I do not forbid to marry, I teach that Jesus and Paul forbade divorcing and MARRYING ANOTHER. There is a world of difference between forbidding to marry, and forbidding to marrying another.
Robert wrote, "The Jews did commonly divorce and those divorced, under the Law, who married were not charged with adultery. The marriages were accepted as legitimate scriptural marriages. My opponent seeks to convince you that Jesus did teach that those who divorced and married committed adultery, but his argument is based upon faulty translations, scholars who either lied or just did not know the truth, circular reasoning and numerous assumptions. It can be concluded with certainty that the Pharisees did not understand Jesus to have contradicted the teachings of Moses as found in Deut. 24. This fact utterly destroys Jack's proposition."
This quote demonstrates Robert does not understand the issue between Jesus and the Pharisees. They were arguing for "free" divorce and remarriage rights-Robert is correct on that! Where he errs is in not seeing that Jesus is contradicting that and is telling them that they where not applying Deuteronomy 24 correctly. They used it to justify divorce and remarriage, but Jesus corrected that interpretation and taught that divorce and marriage to another results in adultery.
Jesus' disciples understood clearly the contrast between the two positions and the restrictive nature of Jesus' teaching on this subject. They responded to it by saying, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry," (Matthew 19:10 NASB). They got the point, and being used to the permissive teaching of the Pharisees on this subject were shocked at Jesus' teaching. Robert would do well to see the seriousness of it as well.
Robert's paper before this one went on some 71 pages and he complains that mine did not follow suit and implies that somehow I have short changed the reader and ignored his arguments. Neither the validity, nor the truthfulness of one's argument is established by being verbose and presenting the readers with 71 pages of material. The fact is, I have made two negative arguments, and I have reviewed the arguments which I believe need to be reviewed, and I have ignored a great deal of material that I consider immaterial to the discussion. Robert should be happy to leave this matter to the reader to judge. If, as he charges, I have not answered his material, then it is being presented to the reader without refutation and he has nothing to complain about. But if, as I claim, it is not the bulk of the material that establishes truth, but the quality of it and its harmony with God's word, then he has nothing to complain about and I have answered his material thoroughly. I am satisfied to leave it to the reader to judge.
In his closing Robert presents the three passages he says proves his proposition. I want to briefly review them and my answers to his arguments on these passages as I close this final installment in the debate.
The first passage is 1 Corinthians. 7:2, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Robert's argument is that this passage teaches that sexual need authorize the divorce to marry another. Jesus demonstrates this is not so when he teaches that the sexual conduct within a marriage that results from a divorced person marrying another are adultery (Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Matthew 5:32).
The second passage is 1 Corinthians 7:8, 9, "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Robert's argument is that this general statement authorizes all unmarried individuals, including those unmarried by virtue of divorce, to marry. He is correct in this argument! ALL DIVORCED PEOPLE ARE AUTHORIZED TO MARRY-THEY ARE SIMPLY LIMITED TO MARRYING THEIR ORIGIONAL SPOUSE. Paul says that divorced people are to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. Where Robert goes wrong here is that he teaches this passage authorizes divorce people to marry ANOTHER mate.
The third passage is 1Corinthians 7:27, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." I covered this passage thoroughly earlier and demonstrated that the term bound here is broader than the term married, and that in fact divorced people are still bound to their mate in the sense that they are obligated to remain unmarried or else be reconciled.
Robert presented three passages, and we have shown how his arguments on all three are in error. Consequently, his proposition, which says, "all divorce persons are 'unbound' and may marry another," is in error.
In closing I urge the readers to search the scriptures carefully and to measure all that has been said in the light of God's word. I urge you to reject the permissive views on divorce and remarriage that permeate our society and many churches, and to accept God's will in this matter. Whatever sacrifices that leads to will glorify God, and will protect the institution of marriage.
Finally I simply close with this plea-if you are married stay that way! If you do divorce, then remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
God bless!
Jack Holt
aka Ahnog
http://www.ahnog.us
http://www.whiteparkchurchofchrist.org