Divorce and Remarriage

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. "

“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, 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 Wycliff 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 marrying 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.

Conclusion of Second Affirmative:
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.”

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.

Waters’ Response to Jack’s First Negative Argument

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Waters’ Response to Jack’s Second Negative Argument

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Robert:
I answered this already above.

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.

Examining the Affirmative

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 >

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.

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.

Robert:
Good.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.”

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.

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?

Robert:
Evidently my opponent really thinks there is a lot of support for his position. However, he evidently has not done much looking.

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?

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.

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:

"Honesty, Error and Truth"--Eugene Britnell
“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,
RobertWaters@yahoo.com
http://www.TotalHealth.bz
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Focus_On_Truth/