In his opening remarks Brother Thrasher states that he is happy to deny that divorced people are free to marry. In view of the problems that result from the teaching of his doctrine -- busted up families, lonely lives, divisions, preachers fired, countless souls caused to turn away from Christ, and discouraged evangelists -- one would think that he would be ashamed to deny the freedom of marriage to those who have no marriage, especially in view of the fact that Paul tells him to "let them marry" for "they do not sin." Paul even gives the reason we must let the unmarried marry: so they can "avoid fornication." The position I am setting forth in this debate does just that while my opponent's position forbids marriage to the unmarried. My friend admits the divorced are not still married, yet he contends that God still has them "bound" to their previous spouse. This assumption is drawn from a few passages that, in the course of this debate, we shall show he misuses.
I do not know what evidence it would take to prove to my opponent that the Bible teaches that divorced persons may marry. Part of my proof is the fact that Jesus promised that nothing about the Law would change before the cross. Thus, if we are of a mind to follow good hermeneutics in studying this subject we must reject the idea that Jesus spoke contrary to Moses. If Jesus did not do so Tom’s ship never made it to water. Some brethren (Tom not included), in their zeal to defend tradition, emphatically affirm that Jesus changed the Law. Let us take a look at Tom’s explanation of this conundrum, which I shall show is nothing but smoke. First, let us note that his teaching clearly has Jesus saying that divorced persons may not marry. He explains: "However, Jesus' teaching often pointed people to a time beyond Moses' law to the arrival of His kingdom…."
Indeed, Jesus did often do what Tom affirms. However, in the case of Matt. 19:9 Jesus was not pointing to the future. He was dealing with the present. He told the Pharisees that their practice of “putting away” and marrying another resulted in committing adultery against their wives (Mk10:11). They were GUILTY. But if my opponent's position is true Jesus lied to those men. My opponent tells us it didn't apply to them but it would apply LATER, to people not being addressed at the time.
Tom, you are able to see that it would be ludicrous to contend that Jesus changed the Law. But why can you not see that it is ludicrous to contend that Jesus' words did not apply to the people to whom He addressed – the Pharisees. If my opponent gives up this argument (or answer?) he gives up the debate. If he does not give up the argument he will lose credibility, as others have done with the same argument. If necessary I shall use much of my space on this one point in forthcoming installments. Tom, I expect you to deal, as best you can, with this conundrum for your position.
I want you to remember that my opponent's teaching regarding who may marry denies divorced persons the right to marry, but it can only be correct if Jesus changed the LOM by saying divorced persons may not marry another. If Jesus said divorced persons commit adultery when they marry then He obviously changed the Law because the Law allowed it. It is obvious from the text that Jesus’ words applied to the people to whom He was speaking, which is good hermeneutics. Thus, Jesus did not change the Law.
But how do we explain how these observations do not show Jesus to be a liar and transgressor of the Law? It is very simple: the word “apoluo” is falsely translated and errantly believed to be the same as divorce. Thus, Jesus was not saying that a divorced person commits adultery when he/she marries another; He was saying a "put away" person does, which is different. A put away person is still married! The bond (marriage) still exists! It takes a "bill of divorcement" to end a marriage – not just the putting away, or sending away. If you are willing to apply good hermeneutics you will reject the idea that Jesus said "a divorced person commits adultery" and accept the only logical conclusion you can come to, which is that “divorce” was not the thing Jesus condemned. Rather, He condemned the practice of "putting away" which is only part of the divorce procedure – not THE divorce.
My position was affirmed in my first article in another way. I showed the clear teaching of Paul regarding the “unmarried”. He said, "Let them marry." Paul states why such is needful: "to avoid fornication"; and he says "they sin not." Now, these passages do not harmonize with my opponent's doctrine, nevertheless he vainly seeks to explain them. I have shown that his position has no foundation because the text he uses to support his doctrine that forbids divorced persons from marrying, is in fact not condemning divorce. Thus, we have no basis for even thinking about trying to make Paul's clear teaching harmonize with the idea that divorced persons may not marry. We just need to accept what Jesus said and what Paul said.
I will use the remainder of my space to deal with relevant comments made by my opponent. First, I showed that the "exception clause" was not intended to be applicable to a spouse that committed adultery, but was applicable only to cases where fornication is being committed (resulting in the need to end the sinful relationship by permanent separation) because it was not a scriptural or legal marriage. I presented Lev. 18:6-18 to support the fact that certain marriages were forbidden. My friend agreed but stated that it did not prove my position and that the text showed that some marriages were wrong. Tom, I'm not arguing that all marriages are right. I am affirming that all divorced persons have a right to marry. I'm not saying they may marry anyone, for some are already married to others and some are close family, which would be incest. But they MAY marry SOMEONE. You say they may not ever marry ANYONE. I used Lev. 20:10,21 to show that the Law required the death penalty for adultery. This shows that Tom's position (that the "exception clause" refers to adultery) is wrong. Thus, while this does not prove my position true it does proves his to be wrong.
I used Mark 10:11 to show that adultery is committed AGAINST the wife that is put away rather than WITH the woman that the man marries. This text completely destroys Tom’s position that a man commits adultery in a new relationship when he divorces his wife and marries another. The adultery was treachery against his wife for dumping her but not releasing her so she could marry another. Remember, the men during that time could have more than one wife and my opponent has stated that Jesus did not change the Law at that time.
Mark 6:18 (Herod)
Tom asks, "Since the verse refers to a practice that was 'not lawful,' how does it offer proof that it is lawful for all divorced persons to marry?"
In the past, brethren commonly used this text to uphold Tom's position, but not anymore. Many have actually asserted that John was teaching (contrary to the Law) that a divorced person, who marries again, is in an unlawful marriage. But brethren are seeing that they have John contradicting the Law even before Jesus did, and they realize John had no authority to do that. That the marriage was "unlawful" (and we agree that divorce was allowed at the time) is just an example of where the "exception clause" applied. Herod needed to "put away" his "unlawful wife." To do so, and marry another, would not have been sinful.
1 Corinthians 5:1
This is another example supporting my point above. Thus, it cannot be charged that "sending away," but not divorcing, was not an issue. Remember, I provided a link to a source that proves that the Jews are to this day doing what I am affirming was the problem Jesus addressed.
Tom says, "However Robert overlooks some other unlawful marriages mentioned in the New Testament…."
Tom notes Matthew 19:9 and asks me if the marriages are lawful. First, thanks for pointing out my failure to include this text. It indeed sets forth a scenario where adultery is committed due to an unlawful marriage. Here is a paraphrase of the text: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for an unlawful union, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is improperly put away, commits adultery."
Tom asks about Romans 7:3 – "Robert, is this woman's 'marriage' to another man 'lawful'?" First, we have no specific case here. Second, the text does not deal with divorce and remarriage. Third, my opponent does not believe that the text is saying that marriage is forbidden to all except where a spouse is dead, thus he misuses it.
Matthew 5:17-19
I used this text to show that Jesus could not have said divorced people commit adultery by marrying again, which is Tom's position. Tom replied, "…Jesus unquestionably proclaimed New Testament doctrines in anticipation of His kingdom."
The issue is not whether Jesus proclaimed New Testament doctrine; it is whether Jesus contradicted Moses by saying a divorced person may not marry. This text very clearly destroys my opponent's position, which leaves mine as the only one that is believable.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
My friend seems to want to reject the teaching in the above text because it is Old Testament. While it is true that the church does not look to the LOM for doctrine virtually all believe that we can look to it for teachings regarding marriage and divorce. It is common for defenders of MDR tradition to use Old Testament texts to try to support their teachings. Of course, those texts are always shown to harmonize with the truth I am affirming.
Since Tom is seeking to remove Deut. 24:1-4 from the debate I have some questions:
1. What NT passage authorizes divorce?
2. What NT passage defines a divorce?
3. What NT passage shows that it is wrong for a man to simply send his wife away (without divorce papers, resulting in separation) and marry another?
4. Do you think you can understand and apply Matthew 19:9 without understanding and applying Deut. 24:1-4?
5. Do you think one who uses God's definition of a divorce (the three essential parts), given in Deut., is seeking to be justified by the law?
Matthew 5:31-32
Tom said, "Since the Lord declared marriage to this divorced person as involving adultery, it should be obvious that NOT ‘all divorced persons may marry’!" The ASV, which has long been considered to be the most accurate and trustworthy version (as well as several other highly respected versions), does not use “divorce” in the text. That “apoluo” means "put away" not “divorce” is the basis for understanding how Jesus did not lie or contradict Moses (as previously discussed).
Matthew 19:8-9
Tom stated, "Jesus clearly contrasts His law on divorce and remarriage with Moses' law…."
No, if we are going to believe Jesus always tells the truth it is clearly a fact that Jesus did not make new law before His death, because He promised not to do so. Thus, there must be some other explanation, and that explanation needs to harmonize with all the other scriptures on the subject. The Jews were not being faithful to their wives. Jesus said from the beginning it was God's intention that man not separate. But because of their hardness of heart, regarding how they dealt with their women, Moses gave the divorce law. But they evidently were not following the command of Moses (Deut. 24:1,2; Mark 10:3) because Jesus said what they were doing was resulting in adultery.
Since Jesus could not have condemned legal divorce, for such would be contrary to the Law that He was obligated to follow, it must be that He condemned something else. Indeed the Jews are still not giving the "get" (certificate of divorce) that would release the "put away" wife so she may marry another.
1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 8-11, 26-28, 36
"The apostle discusses whether or not an individual should marry; however, his remarks presuppose that the individual is scripturally eligible to marry…. In each of these cases, Paul's instructions assume adherence to the remainder of God's instructions given elsewhere."
Paul says to let the "unmarried" marry. I showed in my first article that the word "unmarried" includes the divorced. Tom ignored it and continues to teach in such a way that he has Paul contradicting not only Jesus but himself. Thus, the position he holds is seriously flawed. If you are looking for a position that has Moses, Jesus and Paul in perfect harmony then you need look no further for that is what I am teaching.
1 Timothy 4:1-3
My friend says, "The Bible teaches that it is right to forbid unscriptural marriages." That is true, but such is not what the text condemns nor is it the objectionable practice that is being taught today. Preachers are telling men and women who have no marriage that they may not marry. Since Tom has admitted that divorced people are not married, although "bound," the fallacy of his position is apparent. When anyone tells a divorced person that he may not marry anyone, that person is guilty of "forbidding to marry."
Tom noted Matthew 19:9 and said, "These marriages are the kind that God and I ‘forbid’!" No, Tom, God did not forbid anyone from ever marrying, as you and many brethren do. But He did say that those "put away" may not marry and the obvious reason is that they are not divorced. But if their husband would have given them the "bill of divorcement" they could "go be another man's wife."
Tom concludes by denying "that divorced people are still married in the sight of God." He says, "Married people are married, and divorced people are divorced." Amen! Tom explains: "However, God does not approve all marriages (since some are unlawful), and He does not approve all divorces (since some are unlawful), as previously demonstrated." That God does not approve of all marriages is irrelevant to the debate. The evils that I have noted previously are due to men’s contending that a legal divorce does not always dissolve a marriage.
The word "apoluo" is used 87 times in the NT and no Bible evidence (from the context) shows that the word ever refers to divorce.
Unfortunately Tom did not answer all of my questions. He particularly does not want to answer #4, but it will not go away.