The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced persons are "unbound" and may marry another.
Affirm: Robert Waters. Deny: Jack Holt.
Greetings to my opponent and to all who are interested in this discussion of this most important matter:
Jack wrote: Gentle reader, please do not be overwhelmed by Brother Waters' reply. I realize it is verbose, and stretches on to 71 pages, and that as a result some will simply throw up their hands and walk away convinced the subject is too difficult to understand. But I assure you there are really only a few arguments made that truly address the proposition, and that I shall be brief in comparison, but thoroughly refute them in this negative.
Robert:
I want to remind the reader that I wanted the debate to be limited to the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor. 7. I noted that if Jesus' teachings are were brought in by my opponent the debate would then become much more involved. Nevertheless, no prospective debaters were confident enough that they could show that the apostle Paul taught their doctrine if they were not able to use their errant but widely accepted idea of what Jesus said to support it. Thus, I agreed there would be no such limitations. Of course, Jack did just as I predicted.
But after I showed that his doctrine is based upon a misunderstanding of what Jesus taught and I went into great detail explaining the text, Jack wants to revert back to my original proposal to stay with the issue - what Paul taught. He said, "…I am dealing with the issue and Robert is casting a wide net in an effort to cloud the issue and draw me into debating any and every thing. I simply will not do it." But Jack, it is too late! Once you said you would not be limited by what Paul taught in the chapter and the debate started you are responsible to deal with all the arguments I have made, even those that refute your idea of what Jesus taught. When you used the teaching of Jesus as support for your idea that Paul taught the same thing you say He taught, it then became your responsibility to deal with and refute every argument that I made in that area of the discussion. There is certainly something to be said about conciseness. However, this is a debate and each of the proponents in a debate is responsible to answer all the relevant arguments. If you continue to assert that the things I addressed are not relevant the reader will not be persuaded nor impressed with your efforts.
Once Jack introduced Matthew 19:9 into this discussion the key issue in the divorce and remarriage controversy, as I see it, has involved the use of "put away" (apoluo) as to whether it means divorce or a separation. And, interestingly enough, it is the same issue in Paul's teachings because 1 Corinthians 7:11 is misused by my opponent to try to prove that a divorced couple is under consideration, which must be proved to convince the reader that Paul really did not say what is apparent in verses 2, 8,9, and 27,28. I presented numerous arguments and evidences to support my position on the meaning of "put away," as used in Matthew 19:9 but my opponent has completely ignored most of them.
My concern in this debate is not to follow debate etiquette to the letter, or to beat my opponent, but to help the reader to see what is true and right, regarding who is eligible for marriage, and to encourage you to then teach and practice it. Jack is a much more experienced debater than I so we can assume that he has not forgotten about the rule regarding waiting until the last installment to make arguments (adding new material). Thus, I must state that this debate will end after Jack's reply unless he presents material that I think is new material or needs to be answered. If I respond then Jack will have the last word.
Jack wrote:
"But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife," (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 NASB).
In my first negative I offered two negative arguments. I argued first that 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 instructed divorced people to "remain unmarried, or else be reconciled" and that therefore when Brother Waters goes to other portions of 1 Corinthians 7 which are addressed to other unmarried people, and which say that those unmarried people may marry, that he is ignoring the context. In response Brother Waters simply says these people are not divorced, but are merely separated.
Robert:
Brethren, I showed that it was Jack that was ignoring the context. I provided various comments from highly respected commentators, including Robertson and Bloomfield, who clearly understood the CONTEXT of verse 10-11, to be about mere separation. Jack says there was no argument offered. That is not true. Bloomfield said it was clear from the "air of the context" that the couple was not legally divorced because of the word katallasso, which had to do with reconciliation rather than marriage. He presented the Greek and as best I can tell it had reference to reconciliation. This was an argument. Furthermore, I pressed the argument regarding the fact that people who are only separated need to reconcile but people who are divorced need to marry. This evidently presented a real problem for Jack because he just ignored it and continued to assert that his argument is sound, because of the context, but that mine was not. Even though Jack argued that context was in his favor he, just as I predicted, continued to press his only argument based on the rendering of the word agamos, as seen in most translations. His whole position is based upon the assumption that agamos means exactly the same thing in verse 11 that it means in verses 8, 9, 27, 28. He admitted that word can have a different meaning and smugly noted that stating such would come back to bite me. But it has not. Jack is simply doing like the preachers who over and over assert that John 3:16 teaches salvation at the point of faith while refusing to hear the plea to use biblical hermeneutics to properly understand the text. The only difference is that Jack SAYS his argument is supported by the context and is harmonious with all other scripture. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the passage Jack uses to support his doctrine is an obscure passage and he errantly attempts to twist very plain scripture to harmonize with his theory.
Jack presented various versions on verse 11. Note the one from the NASB:"(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband)…"
Please consider the meaning of the word "leave." If Jack were to say that his wife left him it just means she is not with him, i.e., there was a separation. What if someone who does not know the meaning of the word "leave" (or the past tense of it) begins to spread it around that Jack's wife divorced him? It would be a lie, wouldn't it, Jack?
Would those who spread that message be guilty of gossip? Who would be responsible for the miscommunication? Obviously, Jack and others who insist that every word that basically means "separation" means "divorce" contribute to such confusion and miscommunication.
Jack:
Robert's argument on 1 Corinthians 7 is that verses 8 and 9 give all unmarried people the right to marry, including granting people who are unmarried by virtue of divorce the right to marry another. This ignores the fact that in verses 10 and 11 Paul speaks to people who are married and tells them to stay that way, and then tells them that if they do divorce (i.e., become unmarried) they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled. The truth is so simple, isn't it?
Robert:
I made various arguments from the context showing that it was impossible that the couple in verse 11 were married. Jack did not quote anything from me on it. I guess he thought it best that the reader not see it again.
Jack:
One cannot apply a general statement to a class of people when more specific statements concerning their class exist. The specific statements should be used to limit and define the general statements. In this case, verses 10 and 11 make it clear that verses 8 and 9 are addressed to the never married and to widows, and that divorced people should look to verses 10 and 11 to understand their obligations before God.
Robert:
The "general statement" that Jack is talking about is the clear command to let the unmarried marry. The specific statement that he alludes to is not a statement that could possibly contradict the clear statement. The "specific matter" is specific but there is no justification for rejecting the context and making the assumption that "unmarried" (in that immediate context) literally means that one has legally divorced. Again, as Bloomfield pointed out, the mention of the need for "reconciliation" is clear evidence from the context that a legal divorce is not part of the equation.
Jack:
In 1 Corinthians 7:10 Paul emphasizes that what he taught there was the Lord's teaching. Robert tells us we assume that Paul is referring to Matthew 19:9 and its parallels, and that the assumption is unwarranted. Robert is simply wrong. When one studies Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11, 12 and their parallels one sees immediately that Jesus teaches against divorce and that He teaches against marriage to another after a divorce.
>Robert:
Indeed, it is supposition to conclude that Paul referred to Matthew 19:9, yet my opponent insists it is not so. I went into detail explaining how Jesus was dealing with a different situation - the Jews who were often guilty of merely putting away. I showed that such was the understanding of men with a noted reputation for conservative sound teaching and I presented a documentary that was evidence that the "putting away," without divorce papers, is still being practiced and that it is still a problem for women in the Jewish community today. What kind of evidence does my opponent require before he will believe?
Jack:
The Second Negative Argument In my second negative argument I defined what a marriage is, what a divorce is, and what it means to be bound. I demonstrated from the Bible that when two divorce they enter an unmarried state, yet they continue to be bound (i.e., under obligation to God and His law) to "remain unmarried, or else be reconciled." I also showed from Jesus' teaching, and from Paul's teaching in Romans 7, that those who marry another in spite of this bond commit adultery when they do so.
What did my opponent say about this argument? Here is what he said: "My opponent has admitted that divorced persons are unmarried, but he holds the absurd position that they are nevertheless still bound. It does not matter how many people agree with and give their support to Jack, that position is still absurd." Gentle reader, this is not an adequate response. Ridicule does not answer an argument.
Robert:
If that was all I said it would certainly not be adequate, but it was far from all I said. Remember there were over 70 pages in the installment. If you read the material you know I dealt specifically with Jack's proof texts. He reasserts what he previously said but did not deal with my explanation of the texts. I showed that he misused them. What does he do? He quotes them again, evidently thinking that proves his case. Remember the Baptist preacher and John 3:16? Jack's response was to focus only on my noting the absurdity of his position and to classify that statement as "ridicule." I still maintain that it is absurd to contend that unmarried persons can be bound, but it is not and never was intended as ridicule.
Jack (Rom. 7:2-3):
The force of this passage is that when two marry they are bound for life-as long as they both live. They may, as Paul demonstrates in 1 Corinthians 7:11, become unmarried, but they continue to be bound
(i.e., obligated by God and His law) to each other and therefore must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
Robert:
I showed the context of the passage noted above and noted various difficulties that Jack faces in using it to teach that marriage is not ended by divorce. I specifically noted that he believes in divorce and that if he made the proper application it condemns his own belief. Jack made no response.
Jack:
Robert states that "one cannot be loosed and bound at the same time. This is an obvious contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, my opponent's entire proposition is based upon that ridiculous assumption." He is simply wrong about this. Certainly one cannot be loosed and bound in the same sense at the same time, but one can be loosed from a marriage by divorce, yet bound (obligated) by God to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
Robert:
I really tried to understand Jack's reasoning, above, but it just does not make sense. Jack admits, "Certainly one cannot be loosed and bound in the same sense at the same time.…" Well, that was my point. But he continues: "…But one can be loosed from a marriage by divorce, yet bound (obligated) by God to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled."
Jack contradicts the admission he just made when he completes his sentence. Then he uses circular reasoning in his effort to prove that what he just said is not true. Jack must first prove that the words "remain unmarried" proves the couple referred to in the text were actually divorced. He has not done that and I have provided ample sound reasoning and other evidence that the couple were merely separated.
Jack:
While making this argument I cited Jesus' statements in Mark 10:11, 12 and Matthew 19:9 which teach that those who divorce and marry another commit adultery in the second marriage. Robert asserts Jesus is not talking about divorce in these passages, but that he is talking about a mere separation. He asserts that the phrase "put away" does not refer to divorce, but a separation. Gentle reader, Robert is playing word games with us. In the English language we use many terms to speak of divorce. I might say one has "left his wife" and in the proper context everyone knows I am speaking of a divorce. Or, I might say that one has "departed" from his wife, and again in the proper context everyone would know that I am talking about a divorce. Yes, in some contexts these terms might refer to a separation, but we cannot argue that because they can refer to a separation, that in every case they are referring to a separation.
Robert:
Robert is not playing word games. As I discussed previously, "left" does not mean divorce. Indeed, people would be uncertain what was being communicated in the case above but it is because of men misusing the text in their writings, and it is sometimes deliberate.
Jack:
That is what Robert is doing here. He is saying that there are contexts in which the term "put away" might refer to a mere separation, and then he is asserting that is the case in Matthew 19:9 and its parallels. In so doing he is ignoring the context. When a context speaks of "marrying another" it implies that a marriage first existed to one, and that marriage is now over as a result of a divorce and a second marriage is being entered into.
Robert:
I have been unable to find any evidence that "put away" refers to anything other than a separation in any context regarding marriage. I most certainly have not ignored the context. I have placed great significance on the need to study the context of both Jesus' teaching and Paul's teaching. My opponent plays lip service to the concept but that is all.
Jack:
Robert lists several dictionaries and notes that none of them define "put away" as divorce. As I said above, context must define what a word means.
Robert:
In the case involving the scripture one can tell from both "context" and the "meaning" of the word itself, as translated by the most respected scholars, that "put away" or "send away" is only part of what constitutes a legal divorce - the part that involves, well, what it says, "sending away." The text does not indicate that a legal divorce is the point in question. The fact that people have misunderstood and perceived such terms to apply to divorce, and consequently misused them, making their speech unclear, does nothing to help my opponent in the least.
Jack:
Besides all this, Robert knows, and has acknowledged, that lexicons like Thayer and Strong define "putting away" as "divorce." Consequently, all of his dictionary citations are evasions of the issue, and attempts to snow the reader by false appeals to supposed authorities.
Robert:
I also noted that these men were all of Catholic background and divorce is not first on the list, but in fact way down the list. This is significant. At the time these works were done it may well have already become a common practice of people to speak of "put away" as divorce because of their misunderstanding of the text. I have seen the phrase "used of divorce in Matt. 1:19." In my first article I noted that Joseph and Mary were not married at the time Joseph thought to put her away. Thus, it is impossible that "put away" meant he had thoughts of divorcing her. So, apoluo was not "used of divorce' even in that one instance. When Joseph thought Mary had been with another man his thought was to "apoluo" (repudiate), which would be to end the relationship. And it would have been privately, rather than publicly, as is the case in a divorce.
Jack:
In the process of making his arguments, however, Robert really answered himself. He cited Mark 10:2-5 where the Bible says, "And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, 'Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?' trying him. And he answered and said unto them, 'What did Moses command you?' And they said, 'Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away,'" (Mark 10:2-4 ASV). When Robert cited this he argued that the bill of divorcement is the divorce, and that "put her away" cannot be the divorce because you would have Jesus in essence saying "divorce your wives and to divorce them."
What Robert misses here is that the bill of divorcement is not the entirety of the divorce, but is only one element of it. Robert asserted in his last affirmative, and I agree, that a divorce under the Old Law involved writing a bill of divorcement, putting it in her hand, and then sending her out of the house (or what is called in this text "put her away.") This entire process was the divorce, and therefore when Jesus cites the last step (the putting away) He has in mind the entire process of divorce! Consequently, Robert's own text demonstrates Jesus is talking about a divorce in Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11, 12! Jesus is in fact making a synecdochical statement-citing a part (i.e., the putting away) when the whole is intended (the bill, the placing it in her hand, and the putting away).
Robert:
Brethren, I have established from the use of several Old Testament passages that the thing that God hates is a man "putting away," which is only part of the divorce. I showed that there was indeed such a practice taking place and that it is being done to this day. My opponent dealt with none of those passages. The text I used (Matt. 19:9) does not demonstrate that Jesus is dealing with divorce, but to the contrary - separation and marriage, resulting in what would then obviously occur: adultery. I have fully explained the text already and refer you to it. But I do want to note that Jesus confirmed that what Moses stated regarding the entire process of divorce, as properly noted by my opponent, was a command. This presents a real problem for Jack because that statement shows that the context is exactly what I have been saying was the reason for Jesus' response - putting away but not completing the divorce to free the woman to marry another.
Jack:
Robert tripped over himself in another instance on this issue as well. At one point in his second affirmative he offered us his own paraphrase of Matthew 19:9. Remember, he doesn't believe the term "put away" there refers to a divorce, but that it refers to a mere separation. Here is the paraphrase he offered us…
"Whoever shall send his wife out of the house and marry another, commits adultery, unless he sent her away because of "fornication," which is being committed because of the illicit relationship."
Now, since Robert says he believes "put away" refers to a "mere separation," let's put that into his paraphrase and see what he is saying.
"Whoever shall separate and marry another, commits adultery, unless he separates because of "fornication," which is being committed because of the illicit relationship."
Do you see the problem? He is saying one may merely separate, and marry another if fornication is involved! That is the force of the exception statement as he has written it! Remember, he denies the word refers to a divorce, so the force of the exception clause is that one may merely separate and marry another! This is the kind of trouble one gets in when he takes a ridiculous position and denies the obvious. The obvious is that "put away" in this passage refers to a divorce.
Robert:
Surely Jack would not have made the above argument if he had carefully read my explanation of the "exception clause." First, what I said in no way means that one MAY separate from his legal spouse and marry another. My explanation of the exception clause was that if one does separate he commits adultery if he marries another, but he does not so do if the marriage was illegal, such as in the case of incest or one having married a wife from among the people in the land of Canaan.
I even provided an example of two men marrying who thought it was legal because a judge approved it, but that the Supreme Court said it was not legal. I noted that they did not need to get a divorce but to just separate, which would be true in any situation where "fornication" was being committed. Jack just had a flippant response to it and failed to understand or to note the point. This case really happened and I heard a DJ on the radio say they did not need to get a divorce. And certainly what they did does not disqualify them from marrying in the future should they decide to go straight. This is the situation the exception clause is applicable to and I showed, by my opponent's misuse of the word "fornication," that such must be the case. His position is that persons who commit adultery can be divorced by their spouse for fornication (actually adultery, as claimed) but the text he uses to support it does not fit the scenario. My explanation of the text does not have the problems that we see inherent in my opponent's position.
Let us now note Jack's response and then I will comment on the matter some more:
Jack:
I will not answer questions based upon the false premise that two men can "marry" one another. While such may be possible under civil law, it is not possible under divine law. Again, this is not the issue we are discussing. If Robert wants to affirm such unions are scriptural marriages I will sign a proposition with him to discuss the issue.
Robert:
I just want to provide the quote (above) so you can look at it again. Note how he not only evaded the argument completely but that he actually used what I said to insinuate that I might believe the "marriage" of the two men (as to whether it was scriptural) was something debatable.
Jack's response:
"In connection with that, I will not be drawn into a discussion in this debate concerning the definition of the word "immorality" and how it relates to the issue of divorce and marriage to another. For the time being I will simply state that I don't believe that mere lust justifies divorce and marriage to another."
Robert:
This is a debate tactic that I do not recall seeing used before. If your opponent presents you with a conundrum that you cannot answer you just say you will not be drawn into a discussion on the matter. No limit has been placed on the number of words either of us may use in this debate. So there is no justification for not answering the argument here. When I sent each of my affirmatives to the list with a CC to Jack it was late in the evening. Jack was finished responding to the first one by 2:00 a.m. He had completed the second when I checked the mail the next morning. Therefore, I don't buy his statement that this is not something he should be drawn into and that it should be the subject of another debate. Jack, I presented you with a conundrum that is applicable to this discussion and you have a duty to deal with it to the best of your ability.
Jack used the NASB to support his position. I presented some information about the version that indicates it is far inferior to the ASV that does not translate words that merely relate to divorce as "divorce," as does the NASB. I also noted things that should be considered as a red flag. What was his response? Note below:
"I simply will not be drawn into a discussion in this debate concerning the reliability of the NASV. It is recognized generally as reliable, I have used it as my primary translation in my preaching and teaching for the last 27 years because I believe it to be reliable, and that is all I have to say in this debate about the matter.
Jack:
Neither will I get drawn into debating what commentators believe. Citing commentators is legitimate when they make an argument applicable to the debate. However, in every citation that my opponent has made not a single one takes the position he does on divorce and marriage to another! Nor does any passage he cites from the commentaries make an argument. In every case Robert cites the commentary in an effort to prove that someone else believes some element he does, but not a single one of them makes an argument and tells us why they believe it.
Robert:
Jack says he will not be drawn into debating what commentators believe but then proceeds to assert that they do not believe what I believe. The thing that really stands out is Jack saying, "…Not a single one of them makes an argument and tells us why they believe it." That simply is not true. Note Bloomfield once again:
"From the use of [Greek for "reconcile," r.w.] and the air of the context it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not, arising from misunderstandings or otherwise."
So, there are TWO arguments in the above statement: 1) the use of the Greek word and the "air of the context." The argumentation in Bloomfield's statement is as good as any of Jack's arguments - maybe better.
Jack:
"The same thing goes for citing people like Mike Willis. If he thinks citing Mike Willis is somehow authoritative with me, or that I will defend Willis, or believe something that Willis believes just because Willis teaches it, he has another think coming. Again, this debate is not about persons, it is about the scriptures and what they teach. Let's have a few more arguments, and a few less quotations from non biblical writers."
Robert:
Mike Willis is a noted scholar. I have in my library a commentary on Corinthians and it is a decent commentary. People have asserted that I was the only one in the world that was contending that the Jews were guilty of putting away but not fully divorcing. Presenting the quote from Mike not only proves their contention to be false but also helps the reader to have a better understanding of the passage. My opponent rejects the idea of Mike being in any way authoritative but would have the reader accept his statements even though they are not as logical and believable, in view of the context.
Jack:
The lengthy discussion concerning Jewish women and the fact some Jewish men refused to divorce them, but simply separated, is likewise immaterial to the debate.
Robert:
Surely Jack can see that the material concerning Jewish women substantiates my case that Jewish men were merely "putting away" and not divorcing. Nevertheless, he states that is immaterial in this debate, but he evidently thinks that is true just on the basis of the fact that it conflicts with his assumptions and conclusion, which makes one wonder if his standard is his position and practice. Brethren, this is simply more circular reasoning.
Jack:
I reaffirm what I said in answer to his question about Herod and Herodias and the hypothetical situation in which someone murders his wife in order that he may marry another-people who do this commit adultery in the second relationship. Again, we must not just go by the letter of the law, but by its spirit and intent. Having said this, this is all I will say on the subject in this discussion. It is not the issue before us at this time, and I will not allow it and Robert's inability to see the authority for it to cloud the issue.
Robert:
In my previous installment I noted that Jack apparently misread the question and therefore misspoke. I also showed from the case of David that one does not commit adultery by marrying someone loosed due to murder. Nevertheless, Jack tries to defend his doctrine by continuing (despite the evidence) to assert that, "people who do this commit adultery in the second relationship." Jack, you hurt your credibility greatly with your response on this. What you said contradicts your own application of Rom. 7:2-3.
Jack:
I brought up Deuteronomy 24 in my last negative. My point in doing so was to demonstrate that it did not authorize marriage to another, but that it simply says when one is divorced and marries another then the first spouse cannot take the remarried partner back. I pointed to the NASV and several other translations that demonstrate this is the proper translation of Deuteronomy 24. That point has not been addressed. Yes, he attacked the NASV, but he did not address the basic point that Deuteronomy 24 does not authorize marriage to another, nor did he, nor will he be able to discredit the other translations. This being the case an important element of Robert's proposition is destroyed--that element is Robert's assumption that God authorizes all divorced people to marry another.
Robert:
Jack seems to have forgotten that I first appealed to the reader to accept the ASV's rendering of the text, which is considered by virtually all to be the most accurate, literal and reliable version. Second, I discussed the context and pointed out that regardless of which rendering of the passage is correct the context indicated that the women who were given the divorce were released. I pointed out that the names of the scholars of the NASB are unavailable. I then asked, "How can you be expected to believe someone whose name you are not given and about whom you know nothing?" Jack says he will not be drawn into a discussion of versions regardless of the fact that their accuracy is vital to our knowing what the scriptures actually say.
Jack: Robert has a lot to say about divorce, and it is a bit on the schizophrenic side. He complains I have misrepresented him by saying his proposition advocates that one can divorce and marry another without sin. When I said that my emphasis was on the "marry another without sin." However, the reader will remember that I told you that due to the fact he didn't give us a solid affirmative in his first paper that he would come back and charge me with misrepresenting him, didn't I? Nevertheless, we will take him at his word-he believes divorce is wrong, but that all divorced people may marry another.
Robert:
I very much appreciate that my opponent has set the record straight. However, there really was no excuse for making that charge, even if he thought it was true, without first asking me to verify it, especially in view of the fact that I had emphasized my position on this very matter and provided scripture to support it.
Jack:
(Gentle reader, wrap your minds around the word all.)
Robert:
It appears that Jack wants to prejudice the reader because I used the word "all" in the proposition: "…All divorced persons are unbound.…" I fail to see anything repugnant about the entire proposition that I have affirmed. Paul said, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let EVERY man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." The word "all" means the same thing as the word "every." Is there something schizophrenic or repugnant about what I said? It is the same thing that Paul said.
Jack:
Having said that, Robert makes some pretty far out statements on this issue. He says the marriage covenant is basically like any other, and gives an example wherein he and I agree to engage in a series of debates, but later back out of the agreement. I hope he misspoke in this case, and that he really doesn't believe the marriage covenant is this weak, and that divorce is this inconsequential. Whether he did or not, I say that his position on remarriage encourages divorce, and makes it without any real consequence, and is detrimental to the well being of the marriage institution.
Robert:
I did not misspeak. A covenant is a covenant and the fact that many brethren have imposed celibacy upon both the innocent and the guilty who are involved in the breaking of the marriage covenant should not be considered as evidence that a marriage covenant cannot be completely ended by divorce. There are consequences for breaking a covenant; nevertheless when it is broken, and no longer exists, it is absurd to argue that either or both parties are still bound by it in any way. I fail to see how breaking up legal/scriptural marriages and imposing celibacy is something that strengthens the marriage institution in any way. When a marriage is dead most are going to divorce and eventually marry another. Jack's false doctrine will cause many of these people to reject Christ. If they are already in the church many will either find another church or will be caused to give up completely.
Jack:
At one point in my last paper I said that "divorce is a dreadful sin in the sight of God, and marriages in which divorced people have married another encourage this evil." Robert responds by saying, "My friend, you are completely wrong about divorce being a dreadful sin." Later he wrote, "My opponent espouses a doctrine that takes away the God given right of divorce." Is it any wonder that he charges me with misrepresentation when he himself flip-flops around like this?
Robert:
There was no flip-flop. In my previous installment I showed that it is not divorce that God said he hates but "putting away." I noted that God actually divorced and I made various points which I backed up with scripture. But the above is all that my opponent has said about it. Indeed, my opponent's doctrine takes away the God given right of divorce. Remember the points I made about divorce being a COMMAND? Jack does not want to go there. He avoids the facts completely and therefore fails to understand the very passage on which his entire doctrine is based.
Jack:
Yes, Robert, I know that God permits divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts. That simply means that God does not desire divorce, but He realizes that because of sin sometimes divorces will take place.
Robert:
Since you believe that "put away" means divorce how do you explain the fact that the actual divorce, consisting of three parts, was a command? Explain how this harmonizes with your assertion that divorce was what was permitted.
Jack:
The last refuge of every false teacher is emotional appeals. Robert engages in these freely. He asserts my position "punishes" people, causes them to suffer, and deprives them of a sexual partner. At one point he goes so far as to question my convictions and to assert that should my wife leave me that my needs would soon force me to "realize just how 'not good' it is for a man to be alone." I understand that divorce has terrible consequences, and that people suffer. However, we cannot look to these for authority to marry another.
Robert:
I was not suggesting that you look to the substance of those remarks as authority to marry another. I was suggesting that you consider what you are doing, particularly that it is against not only the nature of God but is opposite that which God desires. I pointed out that those who are misusing scripture to teach that persons who have no marriage cannot have one, regardless of what you call it, are indeed "forbidding to marry" and therefore doing that which is classified as demonic (1 Tim. 4:1-3).
Jack:
We must look to the scriptures; and when we see that God says that divorced people must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled, and that should they marry another they are committing adultery, we must be willing to sacrifice for the glory of God and the protection of the institution of marriage. Many are persuaded by such emotional appeals, but thinking individuals will not be.
Robert:
Jack continues his quoting and misusing scriptures just like some Baptists do on John 3:16 while failing to apply proper hermeneutics in search for truth, which, if applied, would result in a completely different but correct understanding. Thinking individuals will consider all the facts and will not allow their minds to be prejudiced by comments that are designed to prevent learning.
Robert:
I can't speak for the readers but I was "struck" when I saw how much of my material Jack failed to address. After Jack appealed to Jesus' teaching, as I warned that he would when he saw he was not proving what he needed to prove, I showed the truth about what was Jesus' teaching. I showed that the concern of Jesus was over the same thing that had been a problem during Moses' day, which was the reason for the command in Deut. 24:1-4. I presented a considerable amount of evidence from various sources, including several Old Testament passages, but Jack barely acknowledged that I even went there.
Once again I present, not just one, but three passages that clearly support the proposition I have affirmed: "…that all divorced persons are "unbound" and may marry another. Read them carefully and imagine you are reading them for the first time. Understand, as my opponent has admitted, that a divorced person is "unmarried." Remember that "loosed" is defined as divorced and that since the word "bound" is used in contrast to "loosed" there can be no credence given to the theory that one "loosed" can still be bound. Remember the rules of hermeneutics that I presented previously. Note that Jack violates virtually every one of them, particularly the one pertaining to drawing a conclusion based upon an obscure passage rather than on the passages that are clear. Brethren, the passages below are very clear. If you had just obeyed the gospel and the evangelist asks questions and found that you had been divorced, do you think he could convince you that you must bust up your marriage and live celibate if you were familiar with the passages below? Add to these the teaching regarding the idea of "forbidding to marry" being "doctrines of devils" and ask yourself, would I believe this doctrine I'm being taught? If the evangelist had just told you that you must remain celibate the rest of your life because you already had a wife, who divorced you and married another, but that you were still bound to her, would you buy it? If someone happened to walk in and join the conversation and showed you what Jesus' teaching really was about and that the contexts of the evangelist's proof text (both Matt. 19:9 and 1 Cor. 7:11), did not even involve divorce would you take the drastic action that the evangelist insists you must do?
1 Cor. 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Cor. 7:8, 9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1Co 7:27, Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Brethren, I am appealing to your emotions but that is not deserving of ridicule, as has come from Jack. You must have feelings for the truth and those affected by this horrible doctrine that Jack teaches, which is opposed to truth and which serves only the devil. If you are not inclined to completely reject this evil doctrine the least you could do would be to truly present divorced persons with the other side of this issue and let them make up their own mind. Please do not jeopardize their soul, and your own, by demanding they remain celibate contrary to the will of God who says, "Let them marry."
I appreciate the good attitude that Jack has shown in this discussion and the way he has conducted himself not only here but in our private correspondence. Unless Jack presents new material this will probably be my last installment in this discussion.
Jack has presented two arguments to support his teachings. I presented numerous arguments using numerous passages, which not only support my position but show his to be error. I feel strongly that the evidence to support my proposition is overwhelming. The proposition I have affirmed is reasonable, logical, allows God to be seen as fair and just, does not have serious unacceptable consequences, and is hermeneutically sound. I wish the best for my opponent and hope to debate other propositions with him in the future.
Below my signature are some of the things that Jack did not deal with at all. Perhaps he will see fit to answer in his next article.
Brotherly,
RobertWaters@yahoo.com
Robert Waters
"From the use of [Greek, "reconciliation," rw] and the air of the context it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not, arising from misunderstandings or otherwise." (Bloomfield)
Robertson: "If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she get separated"? Why do you suppose Robertson did not say divorce? Do you think he thought a divorce and a separation were the same thing? As with Bloomfield, Robertson understood the context.
We also agree that one who marries one that was "put away" would commit adultery. That is what the text says and that conclusion is supported by sound hermeneutical principles. (Thus, it is important that we focus on the meaning of APOLUO from which is derived the phrase "put away.")
I maintain that until one does what Moses commanded, any couple is still married, thus they would commit adultery in marrying another. Jack, do you agree?
In the context of Matt. 19:9, it appears that the Pharisees' first question directed to Jesus was about "putting away," with no implication of thoughts of actually ending a dead marriage in a legal and scriptural way. But, when the command of Moses is mentioned they answer with both "put away" and "bill of divorcement."
It seems plausible that Jesus went back to their original question about "putting away" without the "bill of divorcement" and that He made His succeeding comments with such in mind.
Ezr 10:11 - Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.
There was no command to divorce those women. Why? They were not legal marriages. The relationships were not pleasing to God and simply needed to be ended.
Question: Jack, if a judge performs the marriage ceremony for two men do they need to get a divorce, should they repent, if the State Supreme Court later says the marriage was not legal?
2) Do you believe that an immoral act committed by a man allows the woman to scripturally divorce him?
"…The Jews did commonly divorce and those divorced, under the Law, who married were not charged with adultery. The marriages were accepted as legitimate scriptural marriages. My opponent seeks to convince you that Jesus did teach that those who divorced and married committed adultery, but his argument is based upon faulty translations, scholars who either lied or just did not know the truth, circular reasoning and numerous assumptions. It can be concluded with certainty that the Pharisees did not understand Jesus to have contradicted the teachings of Moses as found in Deut. 24. This fact utterly destroys Jack's proposition .