Robert says, “I asked what it would take to prove my proposition. Tom said he needs one Bible verse that teaches all divorced persons may marry.” I thought that was reasonable, since Robert is affirming that proposition! However, instead of producing one verse teaching that “all divorced persons may marry,” Robert says, “The simplest way to arrive at truth is to use the process of elimination.” Actually, the simplest way is to cite a Bible verse! Suppose Robert were affirming that water baptism is for the remission of sins. Would he “use the process of elimination” to prove that proposition? I suspect he would cite a verse (Acts 2:38) to prove it!
My brother claims there are two views (“Here are the two views”). Of course, he is wrong about this, too. There are views other than the two he states. For example, James O. Baird (And I Say Unto You ...: A Study of Eight Positions on Divorce and Remarriage in View of Matthew 19:3-12) discusses several additional views.
The “second view” is: “The only way [emphasis mine, TNT] one who is a party in divorce may marry another is that he/she has divorced the other for adultery.” It appears he thinks this is my position; however, it is not! Romans 7:2-3 states, “... if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” One who has been divorced can scripturally remarry if the person to whom he/she is bound by God, and from whom he/she may have been unscripturally divorced, dies. A man commits adultery if he divorces his wife for any reason other than fornication and remarries another. Why? Because he is still bound/obligated to that first wife. He remains bound until she dies. The marriage and the bond are not the same! The woman is married to a second man while still bound to the first (:2-3). What many people fail to understand is that two people who marry are joined by more than their marriage covenant--they are “bound” by God. The word “bound” means “to be under obligation.” When a man and woman marry, they are under many obligations given by God (e.g., the wife is to submit to her husband and the husband is to love his wife). It is not a strange concept that two people can be divorced and yet be bound (i.e., obligated) to one another in some way. Our civil laws even recognize such bonds. For example, after a man divorces his wife, civil law may obligate him to support her with alimony. They are divorced, but they may still be “bound” (obligated) to each another.
Robert’s comment that no exception is stated in Romans 7 has no merit, for the exception is stated elsewhere (Matthew 5:32; 19:9). He reminds me of a Baptist preacher who quotes John 3:16 and concludes that baptism cannot be necessary because it is not mentioned in that verse.
Robert’s “first view” is: “All divorced persons are unmarried and free to marry.” He provides no verse that teaches this, although he evidently thinks 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 does. He declares, “This text alone PROVES my proposition.” Let us see if this passage proves that “all divorced persons may marry.” Paul wrote: “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” During the “present distress” (:26) it was good for the unmarried and widows to remain single (:8). Under different circumstances, Paul later instructs certain widows to marry (1 Timothy 5:14). Even during that “present distress” it was better for one who had a scriptural right to marry to marry than to burn with passion. However, such marriages would have to conform to God’s requirements (e.g., Matthew 19:9).
Robert argues, “Paul said to let every man and every woman have a marriage so they can avoid fornication (1Cor.7:1-2).” Paul actually wrote: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Obviously, one ought not to interpret Paul’s statement so as to contradict other Bible statements. If a divorced person cannot contain, he/she is limited to marrying the former spouse (:11). He/she may not marry another because to do so is to commit the very thing Paul is seeking to avoid in these instructions—sexual immorality (Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 19:9).
Robert says, “Paul said that the unmarried are to be allowed to marry (1Co7:8-9). Divorced people are ‘unmarried’ and the text clearly says to let them marry.”
Jesus said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery” (Mark 10:11-12, NASB ). Jesus makes it quite clear that those who disobey Paul’s instructions to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled” sin when they marry another. The sin they commit is adultery. As long as that second (or subsequent) marriage is maintained and one’s former mate is living, he/she commits adultery with the second spouse.
Jesus said that Moses allowed men to put away their wives (a reference to Deuteronomy 24:1), but Robert correctly says that Deuteronomy 24:1 did not allow men to "put away" their wives without divorcing them. Therefore, "put away" in Matthew 19:8 must involve divorce, as that is what Moses allowed. In his exchange with another brother, Robert admits, “Yes, my position falls if apoluo means divorce, as we understand it to mean as defined by Moses.” The American Standard Version concordance gives various topics and includes Matthew 19:9 and other disputed passages under the heading of "divorce."
Questions
Robert asked six questions in his first article. I
explained, “Because of space limitations, I will
address three questions now and the remaining
three in my next article.” However, Robert chided
me for not answering ALL six questions in my first
article. He then asked me five more. I answered
ALL of them in my second article, and I asked him
the same number of questions he asked me. He
attempted ONE out of ELEVEN! Robert should be
ashamed of treating my questions this way, especially
after claiming that I “evaded” ONE of his!
My brother addressed one of my questions: Is a woman who has been “divorced” by her husband a “put away” woman? He claimed, “The idea of a ‘put away’ woman (or person) is not found in the scripture.” Let’s see if “the idea of a ‘put away’ woman” is found in the Scriptures.
Leviticus 21:7—“They shall not take ... a woman put away from her husband”
Ezra 10:3—“... let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives...”
Ezra 10:19—“And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives...”
Jeremiah 3:1—“...If a man put away his wife...”
Matthew 5:31—“...Whosoever shall put away his wife...”
Several other passages refer to a woman’s being “put away.” For good measure, I will add
Mark 10:12—“And if a woman shall put away her husband...”
I suppose he qualify as a “put away person”! My opponent claims, “This mistreatment of wives is what the Jews were guilty of and what Jesus condemned.” Robert, in view of Mark 10:12, were Jewish husbands also being sent out of the house without being divorced? Was the mistreatment of husbands another practice of which the Jews were guilty?
Robert presents a “new argument” from Jeremiah 3:8, alleging that “the sending away is NOT the divorce”--“I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce.” He asserts, “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.” However, this text actually makes perfect sense with my position. If “put her away” means divorce in this text, then the passage would read as follows: “I had divorced her, and given her a bill of divorce.” The divorce is accompanied by a written declaration.
Others have made Robert’s argument using Ephesians 5:19—“singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord.” They argue, “‘Making melody’ cannot involve singing, else Paul would be saying ‘singing and singing.’” They conclude, therefore, that “playing” is authorized. The truth is that ‘making melody with your heart” refers to that inward component of singing the praise of God. It is not another kind of music; it is a necessary part of singing in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).
Robert states that “denying marriage was included in the catalog of ‘doctrines of devils.’” However, 1 Timothy 4:3 obviously has no reference to our forbidding/ condemning unscriptural marriages! Was John wrong for “forbidding” Herod’s marriage to Herodias (Mark 6:18)? Are we wrong for “forbidding” homosexual marriages (Romans 1:26-27)? Are we wrong for “forbidding” a married man from taking a second or third wife (1 Corinthians 7:2)? I answer “no” to all three questions. I don’t know how Robert answers. However, it is obvious that 1 Timothy 4:3 is teaching it is wrong to forbid scriptural marriages, not sinful ones!
Robert refuses to recognize the simple principle that Jesus could teach in preparation for His kingdom (during His ministry) without contradicting Moses’ law. He wrote, “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.” I find it difficult to imagine that a person of Robert’s intelligence appears unable to grasp such a simple idea. I explained this in my first and second articles. Let me try a third time. Jesus’ teaching often pointed people to a time beyond Moses’ law to the arrival of His kingdom (Matthew 4:17— “From that time Jesus began to preach ... Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”). For example, He taught people about the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20), the new birth (John 3:3-5), and church discipline (Matthew 18:17). Although He kept Moses’ law perfectly while it was still in effect, He also prepared people for service to God according to the “new testament” (Hebrews 9:15; 12:24; 2 Corinthians 3:6-11). While His life was consistent with the law of Moses, Jesus proclaimed New Testament doctrines in anticipation of His kingdom. Consequently, what Jesus taught had application to all people under the NT.
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 on marriage and divorce (Matthew 19:4-6—“... Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”). The Lord applied at least two points to them: God’s intent concerning marriage goes back to “the beginning” (Genesis 2:24), and Moses’ command (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) was given because of the hardness of their hearts. This answers Robert’s false charge that “it is ludicrous to contend that Jesus’ words did not apply to the people to whom He addressed – the Pharisees.”
Robert continues his oft-repeated assertion: “To use the word "divorce" ... in place of ‘put away’ ... is to CHANGE the entire meaning, and with consequences that are unacceptable.” I will agree that the “consequences” appear “unacceptable” to Robert and to many others who resist Bible teaching. However, I have previously demonstrated that “divorce” is in view in passages such as Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Robert has not refuted this evidence.
Greek Translators (Matthew 5:32)
New King James Version: “...whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”
New American Standard Version: “...everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
New International Version: “...anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery.”
Revised Standard Version: “...every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
King James Version: “...whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Greek Lexicographers and GrammariansGreek-English New Testament Lexicon ( Berry , 1952): “... to release, let go, to send away, ... divorce ...” (p. 12)
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Thayer, 1967): “... to set free ... to let go, dismiss ... to let go free, to release ... used of divorce ... Mt. i.19; v. 31 sq; xix.3, 7-9; Mk. x.2, 4, 11; Lk. Xvi.18 ... ” (p. 66)
The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, 1979): “... set free, release, pardon ...let go, send away, dismiss—a. divorce ... Mt 1:19; 5:31f; 19:3, 7-9; Mk 10:2, 4, 11 ... Lk 16:18 ...” (p. 96)
Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Gingrich, 1975): “... release,, set free, pardon ... let go, send away, dismiss, ... Divorce ...” (p. 24)
Index-Lexicon to the New Testament (Young, n.d.): “...dismiss, divorce, forgive, let depart, let go, loose, put away, release, send away, set at liberty ...” (p. 61)
A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament (Strong, 1890): “... to free fully ... relieve, release, dismiss ... divorce ...” p. 14)
The Analytical Greek Lexicon (Zondervan, 1970): “... to loose ... to release ... to divorce to remit, forgive ... to liberate, discharge ... to dismiss ... to allow to depart, to send away ...” (p. 46)
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Vine, 1966): “... to let loose from, let go free ... it is further used of divorce in Matt. 1:19; 19:3, 7-9; Mark 10:2, 4, 11; Luke 16:18 ...” (vol. I, p. 329)
The Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament (Wigram, 1970): “... depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let depart, let go, loose, put away, release, send away, set at liberty” (p. 953)
Summary
Robert, you still have not found a passage of scripture proving that “ALL divorced persons may marry.” I have cited verses to prove SOME divorced persons may marry:
1. One who has divorced his/her spouse for sexual immorality: “...Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery...” (Matthew 19:9, NASB).
2. One whose mate (the one to whom he/she is bound by God) has died: “...if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies ... she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man” (Romans 7:2-3). Robert says, “Divorce ends a marriage.” However, divorce does not sever God’s bond!