The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced persons are “unbound” and may marry another. Affirm: Robert Waters. Deny: Jack Holt.
Gentle reader, please do not be overwhelmed by Brother Water’s reply. I realize it is verbose, and stretches on to 71 pages, and that as a result some will simply throw up their hands and walk away convinced the subject is too difficult to understand. But I assure you there are really only a few arguments made that truly address the proposition, and that I shall be brief in comparison, but thoroughly refute them in this negative.
“But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife,” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 NASB).
In my first negative I offered two negative arguments. I argued first that 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11instructed divorced people to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled” and that therefore when Brother Waters goes to other portions of 1 Corinthians 7 which are addressed to other unmarried people, and which say that those unmarried people may marry, that he is ignoring the context. In response Brother Waters simply says these people are not divorced, but are merely separated.
I knew that was his position so I asked him a question in the first negative. I asked him, “Does a mere separation leave two people unmarried?” He answered, “No, a mere separation does not leave people unmarried…” He went on to explain that he believes 1 Corinthians 7:11 does not say the two are “unmarried” but they are separated “as unmarried” people are. Here is the passage in several translations…
(ASV) (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.
(EMTV) and even if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband--and a husband is not to divorce his wife.
(ESV) (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
(KJV) But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
(LITV) but if indeed she is separated, remain unmarried, or be reconciled to the husband; and a husband not to leave his wife.
(NASB) (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
Robert’s whole case is built upon his assertion that “unmarried” in this text does not mean the two are divorced, but merely separated. Gentle reader, you can read the text, and you know just like I do that Robert is simply wrong here. He agrees that a mere separation does not leave two unmarried, yet this text says the two are unmarried, therefore the text is not talking about a mere separation and that being the case Robert’s entire position on 1 Corinthians 7 as it relates to divorced people is in error, and that being the case his proposition is in error.
Robert’s argument on 1 Corinthians 7 is that verses 8 and 9 give all unmarried people the right to marry, including granting people who are unmarried by virtue of divorce the right to marry another. This ignores the fact that in verses 10 and 11 Paul speaks to people who are married and tells them to stay that way, and then tells them that if they do divorce (i.e., become unmarried) they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled. The truth is so simple, isn’t it?
One cannot apply a general statement to a class of people when more specific statements concerning their class exist. The specific statements should be used to limit and define the general statements. In this case, verses 10 and 11 make it clear that verses 8 and 9 are addressed to the never married and to widows, and that divorced people should look to verses 10 and 11 to understand their obligations before God.
In 1 Corinthians 7:10 Paul emphasizes that what he taught there was the Lord’s teaching. Robert tells us we assume that Paul is referring to Matthew 19:9 and its parallels, and that the assumption is unwarranted. Robert is simply wrong. When one studies Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11, 12 and their parallels one sees immediately that Jesus teaches against divorce and that He teaches against marriage to another after a divorce. No, Paul does not use the same words Jesus used, but Paul gives the same commands Jesus gives by implication in these passages—if you are married, stay that way. If, however, you divorce do not marry another—remain unmarried, or be reconciled.
In my second negative argument I defined what a marriage is, what a divorce is, and what it means to be bound. I demonstrated from the Bible that when two divorce they enter an unmarried state, yet they continue to be bound (i.e., under obligation to God and His law) to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.” I also showed from Jesus’ teaching, and from Paul’s teaching in Romans 7, that those who marry another in spite of this bond commit adultery when they do so.
What did my opponent say about this argument? Here is what he said: “My opponent has admitted that divorced persons are unmarried, but he holds the absurd position that they are nevertheless still bound. It does not matter how many people agree with and give their support to Jack, that position is still absurd.” Gentle reader, this is not an adequate response. Ridicule does not answer an argument.
Robert’s case rests upon his assumption that when two divorce they are unbound. His proposition says that “all divorced persons are unbound and may marry another.” He must prove this to us. In view of Romans 7:2, 3, he simply cannot prove this fundamental assumption.
“For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.,” (Romans 7:2-3 NASB).
The force of this passage is that when two marry they are bound for life—as long as they both live. They may, as Paul demonstrates in 1 Corinthians 7:11, become unmarried, but they continue to be bound (i.e., obligated by God and His law) to each other and therefore must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
Robert attempts to negate the force of this by suggesting that I have ignored verse 4. Verse 4 goes on to talk about how death releases us from the law that we might be joined to Christ. It has nothing to do with the proposition, and does not negate the truths taught in verses 2 and 3. We are talking about divorce and marriage to another in this debate, not death.
“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God,” (Romans 7:4 ASV).
Robert states that “one cannot be loosed and bound at the same time. This is an obvious contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, my opponent’s entire proposition is based upon that ridiculous assumption.” He is simply wrong about this. Certainly one cannot be loosed and bound in the same sense at the same time, but one can be loosed from a marriage by divorce, yet bound (obligated) by God to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
While making this argument I cited Jesus’ statements in Mark 10:11, 12 and Matthew 19:9 which teach that those who divorce and marry another commit adultery in the second marriage. Robert asserts Jesus is not talking about divorce in these passages, but that he is talking about a mere separation. He asserts that the phrase “put away” does not refer to divorce, but a separation.
Gentle reader, Robert is playing word games with us. In the English language we use many terms to speak of divorce. I might say one has “left his wife” and in the proper context everyone knows I am speaking of a divorce. Or, I might say that one has “departed” from his wife, and again in the proper context everyone would know that I am talking about a divorce. Yes, in some contexts these terms might refer to a separation, but we cannot argue that because they can refer to a separation, that in every case they are referring to a separation.
That is what Robert is doing here. He is saying that there are contexts in which the term “put away” might refer to a mere separation, and then he is asserting that is the case in Matthew 19:9 and its parallels. In so doing he is ignoring the context. When a context speaks of “marrying another” it implies that a marriage first existed to one, and that marriage is now over as a result of a divorce and a second marriage is being entered into.
Robert lists several dictionaries and notes that none of them define “put away” as divorce. As I said above, context must define what a word means. We use many words and phrases in different contexts to refer to a divorce such as:“leave,” left,” “depart” “put away” “dropped” (as in, “he dropped his wife for another”), etc. Not all of them are mentioned in the dictionary. The dictionary is important and helps us understand words, but the final authority on what a word means is the context in which it is used. Besides all this, Robert knows, and has acknowledged, that lexicons like Thayer and Strong define “putting away” as “divorce.” Consequently, all of his dictionary citations are evasions of the issue, and attempts to snow the reader by false appeals to supposed authorities.
In the process of making his arguments, however, Robert really answered himself. He cited Mark 10:2-5 where the Bible says, “And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?’ trying him. And he answered and said unto them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ And they said, ‘Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away,’” (Mark 10:2-4 ASV). When Robert cited this he argued that the bill of divorcement is the divorce, and that “put her away” cannot be the divorce because you would have Jesus in essence saying “divorce your wives and to divorce them.”
What Robert misses here is that the bill of divorcement is not the entirety of the divorce, but is only one element of it. Robert asserted in his last affirmative, and I agree, that a divorce under the Old Law involved writing a bill of divorcement, putting it in her hand, and then sending her out of the house (or what is called in this text “put her away.”) This entire process was the divorce, and therefore when Jesus cites the last step (the putting away) He has in mind the entire process of divorce! Consequently, Robert’s own text demonstrates Jesus is talking about a divorce in Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11, 12! Jesus is in fact making a synecdochical statement—citing a part (i.e., the putting away) when the whole is intended (the bill, the placing it in her hand, and the putting away).
“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery,” (Matthew 19:9 ASV).
“And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery,” (Mark 10:11-12 ASV).
Robert tripped over himself in another instance on this issue as well. At one point in his second affirmative he offered us his own paraphrase of Matthew 19:9. Remember, he doesn’t believe the term “put away” there refers to a divorce, but that it refers to a mere separation. Here is the paraphrase he offered us…
“Whoever shall send his wife out of the house and marry another, commits adultery, unless he sent her away because of “fornication,” which is being committed because of the illicit relationship.”
Now, since Robert says he believes “put away” refers to a “mere separation,” let’s put that into his paraphrase and see what he is saying.
“Whoever shall separate and marry another, commits adultery, unless he separates because of “fornication,” which is being committed because of the illicit relationship.”
Do you see the problem? He is saying one may merely separate, and marry another if fornication is involved! That is the force of the exception statement as he has written it! Remember, he denies the word refers to a divorce, so the force of the exception clause is that one may merely separate and marry another! This is the kind of trouble one gets in when he takes a ridiculous position and denies the obvious. The obvious is that “put away” in this passage refers to a divorce.
Additionally, the Matthew 5 parallel also demonstrates that Jesus is using the term “put away” to refer to a divorce.
“It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery,” (Matthew 5:31-32 ASV).
Notice in this text—THE PUTTING AWAY INVOLVED THE GIVING OF A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT! This should forever settle the matter in the minds of honest readers.
As is the case with all false teachers Robert brings up many side issues in an attempt to cloud the air and muddy the water.
One of them pertains to the NASV. I presented it and several other versions in my first negative to show that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is written in the conditional mode, rather than the permissive mode. I simply will not be drawn into a discussion in this debate concerning the reliability of the NASV. It is recognized generally as reliable, I have used it as my primary translation in my preaching and teaching for the last 27 years because I believe it to be reliable, and that is all I have to say in this debate about the matter. I will likely have more to say on Deuteronomy 24 later on.
In connection with that, I will not be drawn into a discussion in this debate concerning the definition of the word “immorality” and how it relates to the issue of divorce and marriage to another. For the time being I will simply state that I don’t believe that mere lust justifies divorce and marriage to another. If Robert wishes to discuss this subject he can draw up propositions and we can discuss it some other time, but it is not within the scope of this discussion.
Neither will I get drawn into debating what commentators believe. Citing commentators is legitimate when they make an argument applicable to the debate. However, in every citation that my opponent has made not a single one takes the position he does on divorce and marriage to another! Nor does any passage he cites from the commentaries make an argument. In every case Robert cites the commentary in an effort to prove that someone else believes some element he does, but not a single one of them makes an argument and tells us why they believe it. I readily admit there are some people who believe some things Robert does, but that is immaterial. We are in a debate, and in a debate the only thing that matters are logical arguments that are biblically based.
The same thing goes for citing people like Mike Willis. If he thinks citing Mike Willis is somehow authoritative with me, or that I will defend Willis, or believe something that Willis believes just because Willis teaches it, he has another think coming. Again, this debate is not about persons, it is about the scriptures and what they teach. Let’s have a few more arguments, and a few less quotations from non biblical writers.
The lengthy discussion concerning Jewish women and the fact some Jewish men refused to divorce them, but simply separated, is likewise immaterial to the debate. Robert assumes this is the case Jesus is discussing in Matthew 19:9 and parallel passages, but as we have already shown from Mark 10:2-5 that is not the case. Consequently this material is immaterial to a proposition that affirms all divorced people may marry another.
I will not answer questions based upon the false premise that two men can “marry” one another. While such may be possible under civil law, it is not possible under divine law. Again, this is not the issue we are discussing. If Robert wants to affirm such unions are scriptural marriages I will sign a proposition with him to discuss the issue.
I reaffirm what I said in answer to his question about Herod and Herodias and the hypothetical situation in which someone murders his wife in order that he may marry another—people who do this commit adultery in the second relationship. Again, we must not just go by the letter of the law, but by its spirit and intent. Having said this, this is all I will say on the subject in this discussion. It is not the issue before us at this time, and I will not allow it and Robert’s inability to see the authority for it to cloud the issue.
I brought up Deuteronomy 24 in my last negative. My point in doing so was to demonstrate that it did not authorize marriage to another, but that it simply says when one is divorced and marries another then the first spouse cannot take the remarried partner back. I pointed to the NASV and several other translations that demonstrate this is the proper translation of Deuteronomy 24. That point has not been addressed. Yes, he attacked the NASV, but he did not address the basic point that Deuteronomy 24 does not authorize marriage to another, nor did he, nor will he be able to discredit the other translations. This being the case an important element of Robert’s proposition is destroyed--that element is Robert’s assumption that God authorizes all divorced people to marry another.
Robert has a lot to say about divorce, and it is a bit on the schizophrenic side. He complains I have misrepresented him by saying his proposition advocates that one can divorce and marry another without sin. When I said that my emphasis was on the “marry another without sin.” However, the reader will remember that I told you that due to the fact he didn’t give us a solid affirmative in his first paper that he would come back and charge me with misrepresenting him, didn’t I? Nevertheless, we will take him at his word—he believes divorce is wrong, but that all divorced people may marry another.
(Gentle reader, wrap your minds around the word all.)
Having said that, Robert makes some pretty far out statements on this issue. He says the marriage covenant is basically like any other, and gives an example wherein he and I agree to engage in a series of debates, but later back out of the agreement. I hope he misspoke in this case, and that he really doesn’t believe the marriage covenant is this weak, and that divorce is this inconsequential. Whether he did or not, I say that his position on remarriage encourages divorce, and makes it without any real consequence, and is detrimental to the well being of the marriage institution.
At one point in my last paper I said that “divorce is a dreadful sin in the sight of God, and marriages in which divorced people have married another encourage this evil.” Robert responds by saying, “My friend, you are completely wrong about divorce being a dreadful sin.” Later he wrote, “My opponent espouses a doctrine that takes away the God given right of divorce.” Is it any wonder that he charges me with misrepresentation when he himself flip-flops around like this?
Yes, Robert, I know that God permits divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts. That simply means that God does not desire divorce, but He realizes that because of sin sometimes divorces will take place. He prescribes that divorced people should remain unmarried, or else be reconciled in such cases. I honestly don’t see how a divorce can take place between two people without at least one of them having sinned when it is the first marriage for both.
During this part of the discussion he charges, “…Jack’s reasoning, in trying to prove his proposition, a covenant cannot be dissolved.” First of all Robert, I don’t have a proposition in this debate, I am in the negative. Second of all, I am arguing the marriage covenant should not be dissolved, not that it cannot be dissolved. Finally, I am arguing that when a marriage covenant is dissolved by a divorce, the two remain bound (i.e., obligated) to divine law, and divine law commands them to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
In his first paper Robert asked me if the apostle Paul taught that every man could have his own wife. I answered that “yes, every man may have one wife, but that he could not have another.” Robert comes back and pretends that I was talking about polygamy. He knows better, and so does the reader. When I spoke of “another wife” here I am talking about marrying another woman after divorcing one. My point was, and is, that Paul taught every man could have one wife, not that every man could divorce and have another.
The last refuge of every false teacher is emotional appeals. Robert engages in these freely. He asserts my position “punishes” people, causes them to suffer, and deprives them of a sexual partner. At one point he goes so far as to question my convictions and to assert that should my wife leave me that my needs would soon force me to “realize just how ‘not good’ it is for a man to be alone.” I understand that divorce has terrible consequences, and that people suffer. However, we cannot look to these for authority to marry another. We must look to the scriptures; and when we see that God says that divorced people must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled, and that should they marry another they are committing adultery, we must be willing to sacrifice for the glory of God and the protection of the institution of marriage. Many are persuaded by such emotional appeals, but thinking individuals will not be.
The reader will be struck at how short this response is in comparison to Robert’s article (8 pages versus 71). The simple reason for that is that I am dealing with the issue and Robert is casting a wide net in an effort to cloud the issue and draw me into debating any and every thing. I simply will not do it. The reader can sort through Robert’s material, and when he has done so and carefully listed the arguments that address the proposition Robert has signed to affirm then the reader will see that I have more than done my job in the negative.
I await the third negative.
Jack Holt
aka Ahnog
http://www.ahnog.us
http://www.whiteparkchurchofchrist.org