Waters' Rejoinder
I presented four points to establish that “The Scriptures teach that all divorced persons may marry today with God's approval” :
1. That divorce ends a marriage is fundamental.
From the beginning my opponent proceeded with the idea that I was saying ANY divorce ends a marriage. He said: "Robert must prove all divorces are equally effective in severing the marriage tie…” But I immediately explained that the proposition contains the phrase “the Scriptures teach,” and that I would deny that all divorces end a marriage. Some preachers assert that separation is divorce. Howard wrote, “While the get , initiated the process, putting away was the means by which the Jews actually divorced. ,” The putting away is the final PART of the whole divorce process defined by God himself, which Howard disregards (Deut24:1,2; Jer3:8). Obviously, one can be “put away but not divorced.”
2. Jesus’ teachings do not contradict the idea that divorce ends a marriage, freeing the divorced to marry.
Howard replied,
“But Jesus did contradict that idea. ”
Yet the passage he quoted (Matt19:9) does not support his assertion unless mere putting away, without fully following God’s definition of divorce, ends a marriage.
3. Jewish men were putting away but not divorcing.
This Howard didn’t deny, yet he was unable to show where God condemned the sin because he misuses applicable texts to “prove” that Jesus was teaching that divorce is not divorce unless for fornication.
4. Paul’s teachings harmonize with the idea that divorce ends a marriage and frees the divorced to marry.
I showed that Paul, speaking of the “unmarried” (divorced), commanded preachers to “let them marry” and noted the reason he gave--“to avoid fornication.” I also noted Paul’s teaching regarding the “loosed” (divorced). He said, “if thou marry, thou hast not sinned.” I also emphasized the significance of the fact that Paul did not even hint that a divorce must be for some particular reason.
My basic argument is that apoluo, though errantly “used of divorce,” does not mean divorce and Jesus did not use this word in that way. Thus, instead of teaching that the divorced commit adultery in marrying, Jesus was actually teaching what would naturally follow: that a woman sent away (but not divorced) would commit adultery if she married another.
I explained the exception clause to be applicable to a situation in which the man doing the putting away would not be committing the sin noted (Mk10:11); i.e., if the repudiation (apoluo) was because of an illegal marriage (fornication).
While Howard insists that Jesus taught celibacy for those divorced, neither Jesus nor Paul prescribed any disciplinary procedure. Howard tried to use 1 Corinthians 7:11 to support his contention, but I showed that the text was not applicable to a divorced couple.
Foy Wallace Jr. has good advice:
“If the Lord…had intended a course of action…he would not have left it for preachers to prescribe, but would have himself legislated it" (The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State, p. 41).