Denham’s Second Negative
1. Robert disavows any obligation to prove all divorces end a marriage. But his proposition claims: “all divorced persons may marry today with God’s approval.” He defined the term “divorce(d)” as, “The legal ending of a marriage.” His definition obligates him!
Whether a broom is jumped, or a judge adjudicates the process, each form is legal in the culture where utilized. The Mosaic pattern is not followed by anyone today. Let Robert prove that it is! Herodias divorced her husband under Roman law. It was a legal divorce under that law, though God considered her still bound to Phillip.
Concerning the divorcing of the invalid wife, Robert said that the divorce “can be sinful.” He then implied God honored it anyway! So, it is just a matter of degree as to its sinfulness as to whether God sanctions it. Failing to give a writ must be a mortal sin with Robert!
2. In Malachi 2 the women were divorced. I used three versions Robert introduced. He ignored that fact. Thus, they had to have received a bill of divorce as per Robert. Yet they could not marry another, because they were still married to their treacherous husbands.
Jack P. Lewis has noted, shalach is used of the wife whose virginity is slandered (Deuteronomy 22:19) and the woman seduced prior to marriage (v.29). Divorce is contemplated. The doctrine that putting away was not divorce is a case of “a man’s creating a definition that supports a distinction congenial to his case and then proceeding to chase his own tail by assuming he has established his contention” (Gospel Advocate, 1986:665-666). So, Robert commits circular reasoning!
3. Robert misrepresents me concerning his theory of women put away but supposedly not divorced. He left out my explanation of the point. He ought to have posted it all.
I never categorically denied that the practice happened. That was clearly not my intent. I said that as far as God’s law was concerned it never existed, because God treated the matter as a non-issue addressing instead the heart of the matter. Robert commits the special pleading fallacy.
4. Robert said Jesus taught the same thing Moses taught. But both taught that there was one ground that God authorized. Jesus called it “fornication,” while Moses called it “an unseemly thing.” Robert cannot have it both ways: affirming that Jesus taught something differently here than Moses, while using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for his distinction between putting away and divorce on both texts. We will not allow him to take away with one hand what he granted with the other.
Robert said I hold that adultery is the only ground. I never affirmed that. Porneia refers to more than just adultery (e.g. homosexuality, Jude 7), though adultery is one of kind of porneia authorizing divorce. Er’vat dabar is a synonym for porneia (Colin Hemer, Divorce and the Bible, 2006:58; Phillip Sigal, The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth, 2007:118).
Robert quibbles adultery was excluded, due to its punishment by death. That, however, applied only to where a woman was proven not to be a virgin by the husband (Deut. 22:20-21) and where parties were caught in the act of adultery (Deut. 22:22-24). Two witnesses were also required (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6). The woman discovered by the jealousy challenge was not executed (Num. 5).
5. Robert states I didn’t give a passage where a man was questioned concerning the reason for divorcing. I said by implication they were authorized to do so. We do not have to have an example for something to be authorized.
Robert implies leaving the teaching of the new birth out of the Bible is insignificant, just to avoid the obvious absurdity of his teaching. How many times does God have to say something to make it so?
6. Robert asserts, without documentation, some sources support him on 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. He needs to make an argument on them.
He cites A.T. Robertson’s Word Pictures. However, Robertson, citing the texts of Matthew 5:31; 19:3-9; Mark 10:9-12; Luke 16:18, states: “The Master had spoken plain words about divorce. Paul re-enforces his own inspired command by the command of Jesus.” Robertson applies these and1 Corinthians 7:10-11 to divorce (IV:126).
Waters ignores the ones addressed in the latter text were those “who are married” (v. 10). The woman in some sense was still both “married” (v. 10), and yet “unmarried” (v. 11).
7. In Mark 10:11, the husband commits adultery “against her” (his rightful wife) because he is still married to her despite the divorce, as Robertson observes, “Mere formal divorce does not annul actual marriage” (I:349). So, Robertson again impeaches Robert’s position.
8. Robert admitted the church married Christ according to Romans 7:1-4, Robert destroys his own argument on Jeremiah 3:8. He must have national Israel marrying Jesus. The church was never divorced by God!
Robert repudiates his teaching on Jeremiah 3, when he admits that national Israel had no authority upon divorce to marry any one with whom she committed spiritual adultery, and yet implies a man may commit adultery with a woman, divorce his wife, and marry the woman with whom he committed the adultery with God’s sanction.
9. Strong’s gives apoluo “divorce” as one of its meanings (#630). Thayer states that apoluo is “used of divorce” in the following texts Matt. 1:19; 5:31-32; 19:3, 7-9; Mark 10:2,4,11-12; etc. (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1974:66). So, Robert is not correct on either Strong or Thayer. Shalach does contemplate divorce in some texts (S.Lee, A Lexicon, Hebrew, Chaldee, and English, 1840:599-60).
10. Robert appeals to polygamy to justify his doctrine, but that is a bigger problem for him. Jesus clearly says that the man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. The text contemplates monogamy.
11. I asked: “Joe commits adultery with Debbie who has never been married, and then divorces his wife. Joe is thus authorized by virtue of the divorce to marry Debbie with God’s approval. True or False.”
Robert said: “This is between Joe and God—certainly not for preachers to seek to unravel or correct. You speak of “authorized” as if you are talking about “church action” that requires authorization. Divorce (done as God prescribes) ends a marriage. It always has and it always will, regardless of who is right or wrong or what took place leading up to it. Was Joe a Christian? Does Joe care what Howard thinks, or even what the Bible thinks?”
So, Robert implies that Joe’s action is authorized by God. It will be noted that I modified the term “authorized” by the prepositional phrase “by virtue of the divorce.” I was not referring to some “church action.” He said a legal divorce “ends a marriage.” If not a “church action,” then God authorizes it, he implies. So, he has God sanctioning two sinful actions so as to produce a marriage in which He joins the two evil doers together in matrimony! Yet to another question Robert said it is false that God authorized the Jews to divorce for any and every cause provided they gave a bill of divorce. He is caught in a self-contradiction.
Robert still has not established his proposition!