|
1. Does Mike Willis' statement (linked here) clearly indicate what was the
reason for the writing of the divorce law found in Deut. 24:1-4? WE HAVE TO WONDER WHAT THE "BILL OF DIVORCEMENT" WAS FOR, IF IT WAS NOT TO SHOW THAT SHE WAS FREE.
2. Does the quote linked here (Women In Chains) indicate that Jews are to this day doing what Mike
Willis (noted above) says was the context of the text that was under
consideration in Mt. 19? If Jews are putting away today but not giving the "get" is it not reasonable to conclude they were doing it in the time of Jesus, and that the problem needed to be addressed?
3. Are scholars (lexicographers) inspired or are they subject to errant conclusions, based upon context, just as any other man?
4. Is a translation, like the ASV, which was the work of a large group of highly respected scholars, considerably more credible than the opinion of one man who has come to be seen as an "authority" and who wrote a dictionary?
5. Are there highly respected translators that
apparently understood that Joseph did not intend to "divorce" Mary but
to "put away," (apoluo) which Thayer first defines as send away or
repudiate? link to versions
6. Is "send away, put away, repudiate..." the primary meaning of APOLUO?
7. The idea that "put away" means "divorce" in English is based upon what evidence? Link to quotes
from English dictionaries
8. Considering the true meaning of "put away" in English and the meaning of divorce, if one wants to communicate that someone is divorced he will say which of the following:
1) She is a "put away" woman? or,
2) She has been divorced.
9. Should we not just accept what the most trusted versions say to us in OUR language, and then accept what is SAID or what it means in OUR language?
10. Is "put away" part of the divorce (something that happens after the divorce papers are presented) or the entire divorce? If something is "part" of something, please explain how it can be the "whole" thing. (Please do it without using circular reasoning.)
11. Were the men who were determined to deal unjustly with their wives, as per the Mosaic text (Deut. 24:1-4), commanded to give the "bill of divorcement" (See the ASV and Mk 10:3)?
12. According to the Mosaic text, what are the three things that were required to make the woman free to marry another?
13. If the man merely "sent her out of the house" was she divorced according the Mosaic directive?
14. If the man merely wrote a "bill of divorcement" was she legally and scripturally divorced and free?
15. If the man merely put the divorcement "into her hand", but did not "put her out of the house", was there a complete, legal and scriptural divorce?
16. Does the context of Deut. 24:1-4, and the Jewish men's failure to obey the command, need to be considered in trying to understand what the Pharisees would have naturally understood Jesus to have condemned?
17. Is the GK APOLUO (put away), the equivalent of the Hebrew SHALACH, (send out of the house) as used in Deut. 24:1? (Remember, both have basically the same definition.)
18. In our day, is a bill of divorcement required before there is a legal and scriptural divorce?
19. Which of the following is possible for a man to do while NOT giving his spouse a
"bill of divorcement":
"send his wife away"
"repudiate" her
"dismiss" her
"let (her) go"
”release" her
"set at liberty".
20. Did the Law allow divorced persons to marry again? If not, please explain the following: "She may go be another man's wife".
21. Did Jesus say, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
22. Did Jesus change the Law before all was "fulfilled" at the cross?
23. If Jesus changed the Law from the idea that a divorced person CAN marry, to the idea that a divorced person CANNOT marry, why was there no charge made against Jesus for that transgression of the Law then, or later at His trial?
24. Are innocent persons required, by some brethren, to break up their legal marriage and live a life of celibacy?
25. Has God made a law that requires preachers and/or elders to punish divorced persons, by requiring a life of celibacy? Has this "law" (if there is one)WORKED?
26. Is the idea that one should be punished for something he had no control over contrary to the nature of God, who is a just God?
27. Do divorced persons have a marriage? Did Paul say to let each one has his spouse so he could avoid fornication (1Cor7:2)? Are people who teach that divorced person must remain celibate doing contrary to what Paul said?
28. Did God say it is not good that man should be alone?
29. If a couple get a divorce and ONE of them is free to marry, how can the OTHER not be free to marry?
30. Is it not true that the meaning of divorce is: “The dissolution of the marriage contract”?
31. What clear teaching in the Bible (no assumptions) is there that a divorce is not a divorce in some cases, but leaves one bound and the other free?
32. Does "unmarried" mean, "without a marriage", or must we assume that it only refers to persons "eligible to marry", based upon the assumption of others as per Matt. 19:9? Have you looked up the meaning of “unmarried”?
33. How can one have confidence that they should not fellowship one who has been divorced and married again (if they will not divorce and remain celibate), when there are clear passages like the following written to Christians:
1 Tim. 4:1-3 - "Forbidding to marry" is "Doctrines of devils"
1 Cor. 7:2, which tells us that persons who have no marriage may do so to help them avoid fornication;
1 Cor. 7:8, 9, which gives the command regarding the "unmarried" to "let them marry";
1 Cor. 7:27,28 where, regarding those “loosed” (divorced), we are told that “if they marry they do not sin.”
34. When those who seek to teach new converts, who have been divorced, that they must break up their marriage and remain celibate, are the teaching of Paul first shown to them? Or are they just shown Matt. 5:32 or 19:9?
35. What would the new converts think of you if later, after he/she wrecked his/her marriage and home, learned that you deliberately held back showing them Paul’s teachings?
What will God think of you?
36. Is it against the nature of God to punish persons for something someone else has done?
37. Did God provide a law that requires us to punish innocent persons in some cases?
38. Could this law possibly be man’s and not God’s, since the law man has taught is not consistent with God's nature?
39. Which doctrine is the one that has the greater unacceptable consequences:
the one that breaks up marriages and often drives people from Christ and breaks up churches and friendships, makes Jesus a breaker of promises (Matt. 5:17-19) and a transgressor of Law; or the one that emphasizes forgiveness, recognizes that a divorce has ended a previous marriage and does not make the issue a test of fellowship?
40. Is not the traditional doctrine a classic example of "circular reasoning" - its proponents explaining everything based upon what they have assumed from Mat. 19:9?
41. If the context of Jesus' teachings in MT 19 and Ch. 5 was about unjustly "putting away" (sending out of the house, which would amount to a separation) can you see how one should not conclude that a divorced person may not marry another?
42. Why is it true that a person, who was "repudiated" as per Matt. 19:9, commits adultery if they have sex with another, whether they marry or not? Would it not be reasonable to conclude that it was because just being repudiated (a meaning apoluo) did not release one according to the Law?
43. Regarding the “exception clause,” which of the following is the most logical explanation of the phrase “MAKETH HER AN ADULTERESS”?
Three possible interpretations:
1) She is in fact an adulteress (committing sexual acts). She does not have to do anything - she will be caused to be an adulteress if she is "put away" (divorced is the thinking).
2) She is viewed as an adulteress, but is not in fact an adulterous unless she has sex with another man.
3) She will likely go and be with another man and in FACT be an adulterous.
4) If one merely put his wife out of the house, he makes it impossible for her to carry out her duties as a wife. She therefore commits adultery - adultery meaning, "failing to live up to the covenant" or "Covenant breaking" etc.
44. Which view on Divorce and Remarriage will allow for a reasonable explanation regarding the above? The one that says divorced person commit adultery if they marry, or the one that says persons who are merely separated and marry commit adultery?
45. Should a man back off and look at the big picture and accept what is most reasonable regarding the divorce and remarriage issue? Or, should we all assume that certain noted preachers and scholars must be right and blindly follow their teaching, their assertions, and their practices, and continue the same teaching, assertions and practices in spite of the evidence against their position?
Conclusion:
Are you truly seeking the truth, or are you comfortable with the teaching of men who deny "unmarried" persons a marriage? We need to open our minds to the truth, accept it, practice it and get on with the work of the Lord. In case anyone has forgotten, our work is to make new converts, establish and strengthen them so they may "go teach others also". Perhaps my efforts will help this evangelistic effort if one learns that new converts are to be allowed a marriage and are to be treated as first class citizens in the kingdom of God.
|
