Denham’s First Negative:
1. Robert asserts the idea that a divorce ends a marriage is fundamental.
Robert must prove all divorces are equally effective in severing the marriage tie that God fashions between two parties. But Herodias was divorced from her husband Philip (Works of Flavius Josephus, V:4, III, 285-286), and married Herod (Mark 6:17-18). She was still said to be Philip’s wife. So, the civil divorce did not sever the original marriage according to God.
While a civil divorce severs the civil relationship, it doesn’t necessarily sever the marriage according to God. The Jewish wife divorced by her husband, in Malachi 2:12-17, was still “his companion and wife by covenant.” The final clause of v.14 reads, “…yet she is they companion and wife by covenant.” Thus, it is not what civil law says that severs the marriage according to God’s law. Surely, Robert does not believe that God sanctions every relationship that civil law calls a “marriage”! Why should he then conclude God sanctions everything civil law calls a “divorce”?
Robert asserts putting away in Malachi 2:16 is not divorce. He states that it should not be translated, “I hate divorce.” However, some of the translations he cited in support of his doctrine translate it that way (NAB, CSB). He assumes without proof that no bill of divorce (get) was issued in Malachi 2. In Israel divorce was carried out by the act of putting away. While the get initiated the process, putting away was the means by which the Jews actually divorced. Even the bill of divorcement evidences this intent for separation. The Hebrew word for “divorcement” meant “to cut off.” The act that caused that to happen was not the writ, but the actual sending away, which is why the lexicons define the word shalach in marriage contexts as “to divorce.”
Civil courts in ancient Israel had nothing to do with the common process. In Deuteronomy 24:1-2 it is the husband who was to write the bill, not a civil judge. Women were not permitted to initiate the divorce. The bill also was different from our divorce documents. As to Jeremiah 3:8, the order given was actually reversed. Yet, Robert claims that the process in Deuteronomy is “basically the same” as that in U.S. practice!
2. Robert asserts the teaching of Jesus does not contradict the idea that a divorce necessarily ends a marriage.
But Jesus did contradict that idea. He taught that, when a man puts away his wife for any cause other than fornication and marries another woman, he commits adultery (Matt. 19:9). He taught that the man who marries the put away woman commits adultery. The act of divorce or putting away is not the adultery. It is adultery because the original pair is still husband and wife according to the law of God, and adultery occurs when they marry another.
Robert admitted that Jesus taught the same basic thing as Moses, even though Robert woefully misapprehends Moses’ teaching. If the teaching of Moses does not contradict the Lord’s teaching, then it must be the case that the ground Moses dealt with in the phrase “unseemly thing” (er’vat dabar) is the same thing as fornication which is what the Lord taught.
Robert asserted that because the exceptive clause (“except for fornication”) only appears in Matthew it doesn’t add anything of real importance to the subject. But, I suspect, those who have had a spouse cheat on them would say otherwise! The expression “born of water and of the Spirit” is found only in John 3:5. Apply Robert’s new hermeneutic to that one!
Robert appeals to several versions to justify his “paraphrase” of Matthew 19:9. None of the versions actually support his conclusions. If he wishes to make an argument on them, then he needs to do so. It can be shown they obviously considered these terms as contemplating “divorce.” Lamsa’s translation is based on the Aramaic Peshitta and not even on the Greek text, as Robert wrongly implies.
3. Robert also asserts Jewish men were putting away but not actually divorcing.
Putting away was the means by which they divorced. As to Robert’s first paragraph under this point, it is non sequitur. The bill of divorce was only to be given in the case where one’s spouse was guilty of fornication. That precludes all other causes. Whether with or without a bill of divorce being given, if the cause of the divorce was not fornication, then the action was bogus according to God’s Word. Quibbling about the injustice over the dowry is a red herring. The Jews wrongly concluded they could divorce for any cause, and that occasioned the problem of failure to give the writ of divorce in some cases. Jesus addressed the real problem – divorcing without Divine authority.
Robert misrepresents my answer to his question. I was not “forced to deny” anything. I answered:
“There is no text in the New Testament. All texts dealing with putting away in a marriage context in both the Old and New Testaments refer to one of the prevalent processes in the ancient world, including Judaism. The problem postulated in the question, as far as God’s law was concerned even under the Law of Moses, did not really exist, as it is the case that God only ever allowed (and allows) divorce on one ground – fornication.”
Jewish men divorced for every cause. The Lord’s implicit answer to it was for them to abide by the limitation God gave.
4. Robert asserts Paul’s teachings harmonize with Robert’s view that divorce always ends a marriage and frees the partners to marry.
But he does not address Paul’s commands to married women not to divorce their husbands and the husbands not to divorce their wives, and the imperatives that the woman remain “unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband,” if she has divorced. She did not have the freedom to remarry. She still had a husband with whom she was to reconcile. (1 Cor. 7:10-11).Those “loosed” in vs. 27-28 therefore refer to those loosed with God’s approval and not just any divorced couple.
In Romans 7:1-4 it is the church – not national Israel – who married Christ. Robert’s quibble implies Premillennialism. Also, in marrying Jesus, if Israel did so, she would be remarrying God, not another.
I asked Robert whether it was true or false that the physical nation of Israel, after God divorced her, had the right to marry the false deity, Baal, with whom she committed adultery. He answered:
“The question is absurd being obviously false, but this does not mean she could not marry at all.” But his position necessitates that it be true! His proposition entails that all parties in a divorce are free to marry another person. Robert admits that Israel was free to marry again. Robert is the one who has drawn the parallel by his own teaching, but he doesn’t seem to grasp its implication.
Robert implied in his answer to another question God would sanction the marriage of a man who cruelly divorces his invalid wife just so he could marry another to have sex, though, Robert admits, the “divorce can be sinful.”
No, friends, Robert has not proven his case!