Robert continues to say that Smith’s teaching on divorce and remarriage makes Jesus contradict the Law, Jesus contradict Paul and Paul contradict Paul. Let me show you that this is not true.
As I proved in our first discussion, Jesus did not contradict or change the Law of Moses with His teaching. In fact, as I showed in our first discussion Jesus was not discussing Moses’ Law given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12 or Luke 16:18. Instead, He was teaching His disciples His law concerning divorce and remarriage in His coming kingdom. Nothing about it involved Deuteronomy 24. In fact, all Christ’s teaching to the Jews concerning the Law of Moses and their questions to Him was done in Matthew 19:3-8 and Mark 10:2-9.
The Jews questioned Him about putting away their wives for every cause. Jesus’ reply was that God made them Male and Female and said a man should leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh. What God has joined together let not man put asunder. The Jews replied, what about Moses’ teaching concerning putting away? Jesus said it was because of the hardness of their hearts that Moses gave the law he did, but from the beginning it was not so. In both instances in reply to their questions Jesus taught them how God set things up for the man and woman in the beginning.
According to what was taught in Deuteronomy 24, the Jews had a practice of just dismissing their wives from the house with no means of support and without the right to be another man’s wife. Later, they would decide to take them back. This was all in violation of God’s original law – one man for one woman for life. In order to correct their abuse of their wives, God added a contingency law to regulate the situation.
1. In order to put away one’s spouse he must put a writing of divorcement in her hand and send her away.
2. After he had done this and his ex-wife married someone else, she could not go back to the first husband if the latter husband put her away.
3. Jesus said this was done because of the hardness of their heart – but from the beginning it WAS NOT SO.
Robert has a problem with my illustration about being bound and loosed at the same time. Paul said in Romans 7:2-3,
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Of the illustration Robert said, “The illustration is really silly and shows J.T.'s desperation.” In fact he further said, “Once again, J.T. quotes 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3 as if they support his teaching. The "loosed but still bound" theory was invented in 1984 and reaches no higher in scholarship than J.T. Smith.” Should I be insulted by these remarks? Naw! That is just Robert’s way of trying to cover his ineptness to reply to the argument.
Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
An illustration is just that – Robert. It illustrates! You yourself mentioned Ephesians 5:23 in regard to the illustration that Paul used of the husband and wife and Christ and the church. Are they identical in all of their ramifications, Robert? We both know they are not.
Robert says,
J.T., do you really think 'marriage' and being 'bound' have nothing to do with each other? Isn’t marriage what bound the person in the first place? THEY
Robert, if as you say, marriage and bound as used by Paul are the same thing, why did Paul say Romans 7:3 “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress…” What you don’t seem to comprehend is that there are two laws involved in marriage. There is God’s law and man’s law. In Romans 7:3, man’s law allowed the woman to divorce her husband and marry another (as also in I Corinthians 7:27-28). However, though she is loosed from her husband according to man’s law and free to marry another, Paul (not Smith) said she is still bound by the law to her husband. Paul still calls him her husband.
I refuse to take the credit for originating the “loosed and bound” teaching of which Robert gives me credit. As I pointed out in my last affirmative, Mark did that in telling of Herod and Herodias. According to the law of the land, she married Philip, divorced him and married Herod. In man’s sight, she was Herod’s wife. In God’s sight it was an unlawful arrangement. The text says, “for he (Herod) had married her.” Yet John the Baptist said, “she is your brother Philip’s wife.” Twist it any way you want to, it still comes out bound to Philip, married to Herod.
All I am trying to show is that it is possible for a person to be loosed and bound at the same time. The illustration would not have to have a man in handcuffs for he is in the policeman’s custody. If one is under arrest, he is bound by the law to go and do whatever he is told even though the arresting officer leaves him in the courtroom.
Robert’s Questions:
Question - “1. How many times will God forgive any sin of which one is penitent?”
Answer – As many times as one is willing to repent – however, you cannot continue to live in an adulterous relationship and expect God to forgive you. Repentance is a change of will that results in a reformation of life. (Acts 3:19).
Question – 2. Whose teaching on
Answer – The above question does not address the issue. I, therefore, will pose a question to you. If a husband has a nervous breakdown and has to go to a mental institution and the wife and children have no husband or father, what can she do? According to your doctrine, she can divorce him and marry another without sinning. I challenge you to say no – not that it will do any good, as I have challenged you in almost every address I have made that you tell us whether one could get a divorce and marry another every six months for the rest of his life and still be in favor with God.
And what did he say about that?
“J.T. used 200 words to build a prejudicial argument in which he talked about how many times one could be divorced and remarried. First, we must not overlook the matter of the "present distress" and Paul's advice under those circumstances. Second, I've already answered this once by noting Ephesians 5:21, 25. Yet, whether it is J.T.'s position, mine, or someone else's that the parties believe, divorce happens and the results often are not fair.”
Answer: Let's look at Ephesians 5:21, 25 “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it;” With which I whole-heartedly agree. Yet you say, “divorce happens and the results often are not fair.” With which I also agree. We also both know that there are many people who are not happy in their marriage. But can’t you see, Robert, that instead of them being encouraged to try to work through their problems that what you are teaching is going to encourage them to get a divorce and marry someone else. Please, Robert, stop for a moment and think what you are doing.
Question - 3 “Why do you have no problem with the innocent’s being punished with celibacy?”
Answer: I do have a problem with it Robert just like I have a problem with the person who is on his way to a gospel meeting having told his wife that he is going to be baptized. As he backs out of the driveway, a car hit him and kills him (true story). All I can do is say that he has not obeyed the gospel. Do I have a problem with that? You seem to think that I don’t have any feelings or sympathy for anyone. What about the fact that God sent armies to destroy entire nations of men, women and children. I have an emotional problem with that. BUT
Question – 4 “How many good marriages do you suppose have been destroyed because of your doctrine that encourages one to get to the courthouse first, rather than work things out?”
Answer: I don’t know who you have in mind, Robert, but it is not me. I have never told anyone that they have to be the first to the courthouse. You had better go back and listen to the debate I had with Tim Haile. I am not concerned with the race to the courthouse. I encourage people to work things out.
Question – 5 “Was Israel, whom God divorced, allowed to marry another?”
Answer: No, they were not. Now if you are going to Romans 7:4, just be reminded of what Paul told them and the illustration he used in verses 2-3. They had become DEAD TO THE LAW by the body of Christ that they might be married to another even to Him who was raised from the dead. It was not because God had divorced them. Robert, you are grasping at straws.
Then Robert brings up David, Bathsheba and Uriah. Be careful, Robert, someone who is mentally deranged will read what you said and decide to kill someone in order to get their husband. Again, you are whittling on God’s end of the stick. Were there any consequences to what David did? You had better read a little further in II Samuel 12.
Jesus said that if a man put away his wife for fornication that he could remarry without sin. When I pointed this out and said, "Obviously, in this context the word ’apoluo‘ includes divorce or else he could not marry another without committing adultery" Robert shows his “true colors” regarding the word fornication. He said, “No, as I have explained in a previous debate, the one “put away” is not sent away because of unfaithfulness. That was not what Jesus said. The sending away was because of fornication, i.e. incest or other illegal marriages, such as Herod's and Herodias.”
In the first discussion we had I defined the word fornication. Here is the definition I gave and Robert had no objection nor tried to make any addition to it.
Fornication, (from the Greek porneia [porneia] in the New Testament is a general or generic term which means,” sex between unmarried people, homosexuality Jude 7; bestiality, incest, adultery (I Corinthians 5:1). (W. E. Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words). Yet now Robert says, “it is not because of unfaithfulness.” He now says it was because of “incest or illegal marriages.” But “illegal marriages” is not a part of the definition of the Greek word “porneia.” Yet it seems not to bother Robert to add his definition to the Greek-English Dictionary’s definition of a word.
Robert said:
“J.T. labored diligently to show that Paul taught what he insists Jesus taught. But Paul was not even referring to Jesus' teaching on the matter of putting away.”
Robert then goes to Barns Commentary to prove his point in I Corinthians 7:10-11. He continues to search and find some commentator that agrees with him so that he can no doubt soothe his conscience. Yet dozens of others could be cited that disagree. But that obviously doesn’t faze Robert. Let’s see again what Paul said.
I Corinthians 7:10-11 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Paul said, “I command, yet not I, BUT THE LORD.” So the Lord commanded the same thing here as He did in Matthew 19:9, Mark 10-11 and Luke 16:18. If there is no fornication involved for which you put your spouse away, then if you remarry, you commit adultery and the person you remarry commits adultery. By necessary implication we conclude that the person in I Corinthians 7:10-11 had obviously not put her spouse away for fornication. Paul said that Jesus COMMANDED, remain unmarried or be reconciled. I have challenged Robert time and again to tell us if, according to his teaching, she could disregard the Lord’s command, divorce her husband (if she had not already done so) and marry someone else and be right in the sight of God. To this good moment in time, Robert has not answered. If he answers now, I will have no opportunity to reply.
It appears that Robert is going to continue to teach his God-defying doctrine. I hope I am wrong. For, if people believe and practice it, it is my studied conclusion that many people – along with Robert, will be lost as a result of his teaching.
May God have mercy on all of us as we strive to study and obey His Word to the saving of our souls regardless of what the cost may be.
See the entire debate in one file: http://www.totalhealth.bz/smith-waters-divorce-complete.pdf