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