Proposition: In the
New Testament, the apostle Paul teaches that all competent adults, including
the divorced, may marry.
To
explain his unfounded charge that I have not made an argument J.T. says I have
not shown that Paul, in saying, "let them marry," was referring to those
who had been divorced. He says I need to show "what is said" and "why
it is said." Well, I did that in
both of my affirmatives. In my first
affirmative I quoted the pertinent passages that tell us "what is said,"
and they very plainly support my proposition.
Regarding the "why it was said" I wrote "...The gist of
Paul's teachings is ’Let those who need marriage to avoid fornication, or who
are burning in lust, marry if they are of age’ (1 Cor. 7:2, 9, 36).” And, I wrote: "Paul not only commands
any who would object to a man or woman’s having a spouse not to do so, but he
also gives the reason this is necessary, which should help us to understand and
accept the command. Also note that the
text says "every man." Thus,
Paul does not exclude anyone who needs marriage "to avoid fornication"
and he is very specific in his command.
So,
since I have done what J.T. says I need to do to prove my proposition, my
proposition is proven. But J.T. is not yet willing to give up human
tradition. Even though my proposition is
proven he still refuses to allow marriage for unmarried persons (which include
the divorced). The justification is
based on his assumption that they are not "eligible." But who tells him the divorced are not
eligible? It certainly is not Paul. Paul says just the opposite! Certainly Jesus
didn't say some were not eligible for marriage--his purpose was to make things
better, not worse!
J.T.
knows what "unmarried" means. No
doubt he has looked it up and found nothing in the definition to help him. Thus, he needs to somehow get around the
meaning. He finally has correctly stated what my belief is: "Robert
believes that all divorced people are unmarried." But in his effort to get around the meaning of
"unmarried" he pits Paul against himself, which is further discussed
below. For the record, here is the
meaning of "unmarried": "Not Married;
having no spouse" (American Heritage Dictionary).
Even
though J.T. has not straightforwardly denied the meaning of "unmarried,"
as I used it, he asserts that I have "not yet shown that Paul was talking to
people who had divorced." Well, if "unmarried" includes the
divorced, and it does, then Paul's statement (1 Cor. 7:8, 9) proves my
proposition. It is that simple! Here it is once again: "I say therefore to
the unmarried...if they cannot contain, let them marry..." (1 Cor. 7:8).
In
his first rebuttal, J.T. accused me of not believing that Jesus' teachings are
applicable. He took that false charge
and set up a strawman and proceeded to debate him. Yet he denies he did it.
I noted that J.T. went into the
affirmative mode. He replied, "You just made statements instead of making
arguments." I didn't just make statements, I quoted
clear statements from Paul, noting "what was said" and "why it
was said" that proved my proposition.
But J.T. is still in denial of what Paul said. He says he does not deny that Paul said
"Let every man have his own wife" but he denies that it applies to
those who are divorced. Once again,
apply the word "unmarried," which everyone knows INCLUDES the
divorced, and you cannot honestly assert that when Paul commanded "let
them marry" he intended us to EXCLUDE the divorced in following his
command.
The first thing Paul does in chapter
7 is give the reason for what he is about to say: "to avoid
fornication." Now who needs to
avoid fornication and how can they do it?
Everyone, to INCLUDE those who are "unmarried," and the
divorced are unmarried. (Those who have
been divorced are actually more susceptible to sexual temptation than one never
married.) But J.T. singles out these
singles and tells them they can't have a husband, or wife, even though this very
action is exactly what Paul clearly teaches is sin (1 Tim. 4:1-4). He is forbidding one who needs marriage (to
avoid fornication) the God-given right. Thus, he takes away the tool that God
has provided to help us avoid sin. This
explains why Paul puts such actions into the category of "doctrines of
devils." Think about the number of potential Christians who have turned
away because they were required to do something drastic that not only makes no sense
but is simply wrong.
Maybe it will be helpful to J.T. to
hear an explanation of the text (1 Cor. 7:2-3) from some noted scholars.
PNT
"To
avoid fornication. To prevent this sin, and the temptations to it in an unmarried
state, especially in a vicious community, it was best for each sex that they be
married; the normal condition of the sexes."
JFB
"Let every man have — a positive command to all who have not the gift of
continency, in fact to the great majority of the world (1 Co_7:5)."
Barnes:
Mr. Barnes says "Let every
man..." means "Let
the marriage vow be honored by all." That is what Paul is teaching, but
J.T. refuses to do that. People have to meet HIS "eligibility"
requirement--one not found in Paul's teachings.
"Let every man have his own wife - Let
every man have one woman, his own; and every woman one man, her own." J.T. refuses to obey this text if one is
divorced."
Henry:
"He
informs them that marriage, and the comforts and satisfactions of that state,
are by divine wisdom prescribed for preventing fornication (1 Cor. 7:2),
Porneias - Fornications, all sorts of lawless lust. To avoid these, Let every
man, says he, have his own wife, and every woman her own husband; that is,
marry, and confine themselves to their own mates."
Questions:
1. How can marriage help one avoid sin if he is
taught that it is sinful for him to marry?
2. Is marriage God's main tool to help people
avoid fornication?
3. Who would most likely promote the idea that
marriage should be taken away, even if one is innocent in a divorce? God or Satan?
1 Corinthians 7:32b-33
"He that is unmarried careth
for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that
is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his
wife."
Would one who has been divorced fall
into the category of one who "cares" for spiritual things? Certainly. But why? It is
because he, being divorced, is not married and the unmarried cares "how he
may please the Lord." On the other hand, the married cares "how he
may please his wife." Now, does the
"unmarried" of 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 have a spouse? Obviously not, and this is a problem for
J.T. In his rebuttal he argues that
"unmarried" in verses 10-11 means the same thing as “unmarried” in
verses 8-9. But we shall show that this
couple is still married and only separated. Those who are only separated are still
bound to each other and, unless all love is gone, they still seek to please one
another because they are married. They may in fact seek to please more in order
to fix the relationship.
Verses 10-11
"And
unto the married I command...Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and
if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and
let not the husband put away his wife."
It is
important to observe that Paul is now talking to "the married." He commands the wife not to
"depart." J.T. needs "depart" to mean, and refer to,
"divorce." But "depart"
means, "literally, “'be separated from'” (JFB).
Strong: (depart)
From G5561; to place room between, that is, part;
reflexively to go away: - depart, put asunder, separate.
RWP: "If,
in spite of Christ’s clear prohibition, she get
separated."
Barnes: "Let her not prove faithless to her
marriage vows; let her not, on any pretence, desert her husband."
Bloomfield [The
Greek New Testament] explains verse 11:
"From
the use of καταλλ [reconcile] 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."
J.T.
needs "unmarried" to mean the same thing here that it does in all
these other passages, but we can see from how it is used in the context that it
does not. Keep in mind Paul is talking to the MARRIED. What do the married people who are separated
need to do? Reconcile. If they were divorced they would need to
marry each other again in order to be right with God if their desire was to be
together again. Divorced people can’t just reconcile without a new marriage. Strangely,
my opponent denies that "loosed" refers to divorced in the passage
where Paul addressed the "unmarried," but where Paul is speaking to
the "married" he contends that they are divorced.
J.T.'s
own argument cuts both ways. If those separated (verse 11), who are told to
remain "unmarried," are actually divorced, then "unmarried"
in verses 8-9 means divorced. Thus, the
best that J.T. can do is present a scenario that has Paul contradicting himself,
and he seems content with that. J.T.
also says Paul said “remain unmarried" and asks
"is that the same as ’forbidding to marry’?” If they were actually divorced it would be,
but they were not. Therefore, it is evident that Paul uses the word "unmarried" differently
in verse 11 than the way he uses it in the other passages.
Versions that are helpful:
WNT "Or
if she has already left him, let her either remain as she is or be reconciled
to him; and that a husband is not to send away his wife."
NLB "But
if she does leave him, she should not get married to another man. It would be
better for her to go back to her husband. The husband should not divorce his
wife."
NCV "But
if she does leave, she must not marry again, or she should make up with her
husband."
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
J.T.
doesn't like me using God's teaching through Moses' on divorce. He tries to discount its importance by
stating that "it was a contingency." Questions: 1) When did
men get over "hardness of heart"? 2) When did the divorce text cease
to be true? 3) Where do we find the definition of divorce if we disregard this
text? Can J.T. answer these questions?
I Corinthians 7:27-28
J.T.
states that "Marriage Does Not
Equal Bound–Loosed Does Not Equal Divorce" but makes no argument
to prove it. When he is in the
affirmative I will present sound reasons to show that his argument (?) using
Romans 7:2-3 to evade Paul's command is errant.
For
now, note the following comments:
Barnes:
Seek not to be loosed - Seek not a “dissolution.”
JFB: "Neither the married
(those “bound to a wife”) nor the unmarried (those “loosed from a wife”) are to
“seek” a change of state."
Things not answered:
"Every
man" and "any man" (1 Cor. 7:2, 34) has to be interpreted to
mean "those eligible."
I
wrote: "J.T. will try to force this passage [1 Cor. 7:11] to support his
view, but his use of it proves too much. If it is talking about divorce (it is
not) then not even those who did the divorcing 'for fornication' may marry
because Paul made no mention of an exception."
J.T.
can't explain why Paul never hinted that divorce had to be for fornication. But
it is simple. Such would have been out of harmony with the gist of God's
teachings regarding justice and marriage.
1
Tim. 4:1-3: The usual argument is that this text does not apply to us. But J.T. has just ignored it. We may not know exactly who Paul had in mind,
but we can be sure that if we do the same thing we are guilty of the same
sin. Thus, Paul teaches not only that
the divorced may marry but that we must "let them marry."