Tom begins his reply by stating, "I am again pleased to deny Robert's unscriptural affirmation that 'all divorced persons may marry.' He still has not found one verse proving his proposition."
Tom also takes comfort in my having said a certain passage does not prove (by itself) my proposition. Well, the reader should properly view the evidence and not be influenced by Tom's denials of what is apparent in the texts I have presented.
The most important thing we can do in studying this issue, if we want the truth, is back off and look at the WHOLE PICTURE and THEN determine what is most reasonable to believe. Those who hold the traditional position start with Matt. 19:9 and go from there. But this is like finding one piece of a puzzle and drawing a conclusion as to what it is before putting any other pieces together. Imagine how foolish one would appear if he then remained determined to explain all the other pieces to harmonize with his initial conclusion.
For example: Paul said that the unmarried are to be allowed marry (1Co7:8,9). Divorced people are "unmarried" and the text clearly says to let them marry. This text alone PROVES my proposition; but since it is not consistent with the piece of the puzzle that my opponent used to draw his conclusion, he cannot accept that it means what it says. And so he does not accept the evidence.
Most often used objections:
The second most misused text, by those who try to justify the traditional position on MDR, is the following: "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." But I am at a loss to see how this helps them. It only states WHY Moses suffered men to put away a wife. While it is true that Jesus pointed to God's ideal from the beginning He did not contradict Moses' Law, which allowed all divorced persons to marry another. What Moses "suffered" was not the complete divorce, as opposed to just sending away, because divorce was a command to those who would "put away" (Deut24:1-4; Mark 10:3-5). Moses suffered the putting away, i.e., there was no immediate punishment for it, even though it was called treachery (Mal2: 14-16) and adultery (Matt19:9).
While Tom has stated that Jesus did not contradict Moses, his position clearly has Jesus doing just that. What Jesus actually said in Matt. 19:9 MUST be applied to those to whom it was spoken. This is a simple hermeneutical principle, and it is absurd to dismiss it with no better argument than Tom has offered: "Because Jesus taught regarding his kingdom"; and "…pointing them to God's original intent…."
The truth of the matter is, Jesus condemned the practice of putting away or sending out of the house, and stated that when men do such and marry another, they commit adultery against their wife (Mark 10:11). To use the word "divorce" (which if done according to the law of God, ends the marriage) in place of "put away" in the text is to CHANGE the entire meaning, and with consequences that are unacceptable.
I asked what it would take to prove my proposition. Tom said he needs one Bible verse that teaches all divorced persons may marry.
The simplest way to arrive at truth is to use the process of elimination. Here are the two views:
1) All divorced persons are unmarried and free to marry;
2) The only way one who is a party in divorce may marry another is that he/she has divorced the other for adultery.
Number two can be eliminated because it is contrary to Paul's clear statements in 1Cor7:8,9,27,28, it has Jesus contradicting the Law, and it has Him breaking His own promise. That leaves #1 as being the only logical choice. But this is not proof to Tom because he is not looking at the whole picture. The scriptures I have presented and the reasoning I have offered contradict the doctrine he accepted at the time he looked at that first piece of the puzzle. I suppose it is comforting to him that many, including scholars, have done the same thing he has done. The human tradition on MDR is contrary to truth, but Jesus said, "The truth shall make you free." We must reject human tradition and stand up for Jesus, rather than accuse Him of teaching contrary to His promise and God's Law.
Dealing with the quibbles:
Quibble #1: Instead of admitting that the traditional view has Jesus contradicting Moses, Tom tries to MAKE his doctrine harmonize with the facts. He said, "However, Jesus taught that His law (the NT) would be different…."
Yes, the NT would be different, but in the traditional MDR proof texts Jesus obviously was talking about the PRESENT, rather than the future. The context proves my point. Observe the words in bold (below) and ask yourself if Tom is correct in not applying Jesus' teaching to the people that were present and to which it directly applied. If he cannot do so he has Jesus contradicting the Law, which he affirms Jesus did not do, and my number one argument to prove my proposition stands.
7 "They say unto him...."
8 "He saith unto them…."
9 "And I say unto you…."
10 "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." When would the case of "the man" be as Jesus stated? After the cross? Or was it already true, even before Jesus said it? The answer is obvious.
11 "But he said unto them…." Who could receive the saying? Jesus said, "They to whom it is given." To defeat my position, and defend his, Tom has the impossible task of showing that the words in bold do not apply to the people to whom they were spoken.
Quibble #2: I presented 1Cor7:8, 9 that give a command to let the unmarried marry. Tom replied: "However, he fails to prove that the 'unmarried' of this verse include all divorced people…."
Tom, if you were in a class in school and the professor said, "I want those of you who have been divorced to remain after class, I have something for you," would he be excluding those who were divorced by their spouse, but not for fornication? The answer is obvious. Yet when Paul says the same thing you say it does not apply to all the divorced.
Tom reasons that Paul's statement does not include ALL divorced people because "…this context specifies only two options for some: ‘remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband’ (verse 11).”
The problem with the above is that it is NOT in the context, as Tom asserted. In verse 8 Paul said, "I say unto the unmarried and the widows…." In verse 10, he begins by saying, "And unto the married I command…." So, it is evident that the context changed from dealing with the "unmarried" (which included the divorced) to dealing with problems among the "married." In verse 10, he uses the word "depart." He says, don't do it (don't leave) but if you do, remain in this "unmarried" state. Now, does "depart" mean divorce? Is one actually "divorced" just because one departs? In my first installment I presented the legal definition of a divorce and of a separation. Why, not even a legal separation is a divorce. Thus, those who are separated (because one of them departed) are STILL MARRIED, and so it is obvious why they commit adultery if they marry another.
But does the phrase "remain unmarried" indicate that Paul is talking about those who are divorced? Consider the translation by Weymouth : "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." Montgomery's translation is virtually identical.
Bloomfield [The Greek New Testament]: "From the use of ?ata?? 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."
Robertson makes a statement that indicates he believes depart in the text refers to separation.
To contend that in 1Cor7:10,11 Paul is telling divorced persons they may not EVER marry another Tom has to disregard two important facts: 1) The present distress; and 2) Paul says not one word about any exception, which tells us he is not condemning marriage for the divorced. Indeed, he is dealing only with separations. A divorce ends a marriage, but a separation does not. It is reasonable to conclude that Paul merely taught that those who are separated were not to marry another, especially during the present distress. However, Paul clearly stated that the "unmarried" (divorced) may marry and commanded those who might object to "let them marry." Will you obey Paul, or follow human tradition?
Tom cited Rom7:1-4 in his attempt to prove that some divorced persons may not marry. But he grossly misuses this text. This passage, as well as the one discussed above, says nothing about any exception. This text was not meant to teach us about divorce and remarriage. (see http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-romans-7-exegesis.htm)
Tom concluded: "Furthermore, my opponent's view contradicts Jesus' teaching (Matthew 5:32; 19:9)."
No, I have demonstrated that it is Tom's view that not only contradicts Jesus' teaching in this text, but also makes Him a liar and transgressor. My view of Paul's teaching is in perfect harmony with Jesus' teaching, but it does contradict Tom's idea of what Jesus taught. In view of his statement, that Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage is different from Moses' teaching, it seems apparent that Tom is not greatly concerned about contradictions.
Waters' Questions
4. Can one be "put away, sent out of the house, repudiated" yet not divorced?
Tom replied in the affirmative, but then uses a faulty translation of Luke 16:18 to show "…Marriages involving divorced people may involve adultery (Luke 16:18-‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.’).”
Tom, where is the "exception" in Luke 16:18? Your proof text, as falsely translated, has Jesus condemning divorce under any circumstances. Remember, God is a divorcee.
Tom has admitted that it is possible for a man to send his wife out of the house without divorcing her. This is true because it takes a "bill of divorcement" to accomplish a divorce. The word “apoluo” in Matt19:9 means "send away." Thus, it is apparent that the thing Jesus condemned was sending away rather than a legal divorce.
5. How could Jesus have been speaking to Jews yet it not be applicable to them?
Tom states that Jesus taught people about His supper, the new birth and church discipline. We agree that this did not contradict the Law. But Tom continued: "However, Jesus' also explained truth that was relevant to the Pharisees at the time He spoke to them by pointing them to God's original intent…."
Jesus' pointing them to God's original intent was the logical and right thing to do, and that intent NEVER changed. If Tom's argument has any validity a Jew under the Law could have argued that Moses' law did not allow all divorced persons to marry because it was not God's "original intent." To those who can see the whole picture, Moses allowed all the divorced to marry and Jesus could not have contradicted it without sinning, thus He did not. This means my proposition has to be true.
6. If apoluo, as used by Jesus, refers only to separation how would this fact affect the way you believe and practice relative to MDR, and how would it affect the church?
Tom evaded the question. Here is what should have been his straightforward answer: "Then it would be clear that Jesus was not condemning remarriage after divorce as being adultery, but was condemning the treacherous act of the men sending away their wives and marrying another."
4. Do you think you can understand and apply Matthew 19:9 without understanding and applying Deut. 24:1-4?
Tom basically says, “Yes, we can,” but he does not use good hermeneutics in his study. This text is the hub of the issue.
Tom concluded by saying that if a municipality used Deut.24:1-4 as a legal "procedure for a person to obtain a divorce, it would be contrary to the Lord's instructions."
Our country, and most countries, require that divorce papers be presented, just as did Moses. Yet Tom says this is contrary to the Lord's instructions. So, Tom, first you tell us Jesus did not contradict the Law, but now you are apparently saying the Lord DID in fact teach contrary to Moses. Here is more evidence (from your second denial) of you at odds with yourself: "Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is OT law, not Jesus' marriage law now!" Tom, did He, or did He not, teach contrary to the Law? You can't have it both ways.
Tom's Questions:
Tom asked several questions. I'll use my remaining space to deal with the most relevant and challenging one:
8. Is a woman who has been "divorced" by her husband a "put away" woman?
The idea of a "put away" woman (or person) is not found in the scripture. That idea came about as a result of men’s thinking "put away" means "divorced." Nevertheless, "put away" is indeed PART of the divorce procedure authorized by God through Moses, but if a man does nothing more than "put away" his wife and marry another he commits adultery against her (Mark 10:11). Tom admitted previously (in answer to my question #4) that a woman may be put away (sent out of the house, repudiated) without being divorced. Thus, he gives much credit to my position. This mistreatment of wives is what the Jews were guilty of and what Jesus condemned. It was far worse because with a divorce they would then be free to marry another.
New Argument:
Jer. 3:8 "…I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce…." Some emphatically argue that "put away" means divorce. But such cannot be true because of how ridiculous the passage would read. They have God saying: I DIVORCED HER AND I DIVORCED HER. Nevertheless, the fact that God did TWO SEPARATE things (described with different words), to Israel , to accomplish the divorce, is positive proof that the sending away is NOT the divorce.
Conclusion:
Divorce ends a marriage and Paul said to let every man and every woman have a marriage so they can avoid fornication (1Cor.7:1, 2). Thus, if we deny them a marriage we put them in a vulnerable position to sin and cause many to turn from Christ. This has to be why denying marriage was included in the catalog of "doctrines of devils" (1Tim. 4:1-4).