It is my pleasure to be a participant with Pat Donahue in discussion of this very important Bible subject.
I wish to begin by appealing to the reader to have such a love for truth that you are willing to sacrifice anything to have it. We must realize that under certain circumstances we might not be as objective, because of the consequences of making a change on this issue, as we otherwise might be. Therefore, we must be diligent and careful in our endeavor to find the truth.
Perhaps you are one that has serious doubts about the traditional MDR teachings. Maybe you have observed that it is not characteristic of God's justice to change the Law from a divorced woman may "go be another man's wife" to "a divorced person is still 'bound' and cannot marry" even if he/she has committed no marital sin. Perhaps you realize that it is inconsistent to say 'let them marry"..."thou has not sinned" when speaking of unmarried people (which includes those who are divorced) and then turn around and declare that divorced persons may not marry. Of course Paul, in his teachings, was not inconsistent. But this is simply the erroneous interpretation of some when they read his words.
Or, maybe you have been divorced and have a great need for companionship of the opposite sex (1 Cor. 7:7) and want to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:2), but you also want to go to heaven. If such is the case you may well be more inclined to look at the whole picture rather than what men have assumed and insist that Jesus taught.
In this debate I will show from the scriptures that the position I hold is reasonable, logical, consistent and scriptural. Pat says it is not, but the truth is that his position is unreasonable, illogical, unscriptural, inconsistent and unjust. In addition, his position forces him to misuse and misapply a number of clear scriptures. Pat's position makes Jesus look like a liar and has Moses teaching what God never wanted. It makes Jesus contradict Moses (God actually) and Paul contradict Jesus as well as himself. Pat's teaching also shows God to be unjust by giving us a law that requires punishing people who are innocent of marital sin. Furthermore, this punishment (which is often called "consequences") takes away God's means of helping people "avoid fornication" (1Cor. 7:2). Yet Pat continually insists in private letters that his position has no problems. It is nice to have confidence in what you believe, but such is only profitable if you have truly faced reality and dealt with it properly, resulting in having a position that is based upon facts.
Note that the proposition says "regardless of the reason." A position that requires a certain "reason" for a divorce before it is truly a divorce 'freeing both parties to marry another' is contrary to the teaching of both Jesus and Paul. In Luke and Mark, Jesus did not mention an exception clause, making one wonder why he did not, if the exception is as important as some think it is. Indeed, many have misunderstood Jesus' teachings on the exception clause, but Paul's teaching is clear. Pat knows this.
When speaking of the "unmarried" (no qualifications given) Paul said "let them marry" (1 Cor. 7:8, 9). This text (along with 27, 28) is proof that the divorced, regardless of the reason, may marry. No amount of verbal gymnastics can make Paul's words mean something different or make them not apply to all the unmarried.
I have explained my position on Jesus' teachings, related to what Pat thinks is divorce, in my answer to Pat's questions. His main argument was to provide quotes from uninspired men on the meaning of "apoluo." However, I showed numerous highly respected versions that never translate "apoluo" as divorce. No one can deny that it is indeed possible to "put away" a spouse without going through the process of divorce. This was a problem in Jesus' day, and it continues to be a problem to this day. Thus it should come as no surprise that Jesus would deal with this specific problem rather than boldly stand before the Jews and tell them, "Moses was wrong and you are living in adultery if you have divorced and remarried." (See http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-jewish-women-in-chains.htm .)
Reply to Pat's answers to my questions:
1. I presented a scenario where a woman is "sent away" by her husband because he hates her. He does not give her a certificate of divorce. I asked Pat if she was "apoluo"-ed. He admitted that if the man never completed the divorce she was not "apoluo"-ed. Thus, he surely can see the plausibility of the idea that Jesus dealt with this situation instead of making new law.
Pat also admits that the man commits adultery "against her" in putting her away, but he also has to try to defend his position by asserting that it is WITH the woman he marries. But if you look carefully at the text you will find that it does not say that. This is because the men (Jews under the Mosaic Law) to whom Jesus spoke could have more than one wife. This observation presents another problem for Pat's assertion that Jesus' teachings didn't apply at the time.
Question: In my scenario, the woman was sent away because the man hated her. Pat says this was "divorce" but it does not free the woman. (I think he admitted it wasn't divorce if the man did not complete the process.) Pat, let us say that the woman had the certificate in her hand. Would you still tell her she would commit adultery if she married another? Would she then not think you were guilty of: 1) forbidding marriage and all that is involved; 2) punishing her and calling it God's teachings; and 3) causing her to commit fornication because you deny her a marriage (1 Cor. 7:2)? I recognize it would be possible to just show her Matthew 5:32 while withholding Paul's teachings (which is typical), and convince her to your way of thinking.
2. In my second question I asked: If the woman in the scenario was not divorced, and other men were likewise sending away wives and marrying another, would this not be something Jesus would address, especially since he could avoid falling into the Jews' trap and taking sides on the highly controversial issue? Pat refused to properly answer this. He answered it in view of "separation" being "part" of a legal divorce, which he says Jesus condemned. My question dealt with the issue of men's merely putting away, which is to this day a real problem among the Jews. To admit that Jesus would take advantage of such an opportunity would clearly make my position appear to be credible. Therefore, even though we made a prior agreement to answer all the questions, Pat evaded answering this one.
My friend misleads the reader in the first sentence of his answer. Jesus was initially asked, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (vs. 3). Jesus dealt with what they asked, regardless of what they may have meant. It was not until the Jews heard Jesus' reply (which cut to their heart because of their guilt) that they referred to Moses' teachings that allowed divorce if the certificate was given. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that one consider the situation. Pat has the situation all wrong, and therefore has come to believe something that is not true.
It is obvious that Jesus was addressing the Jews who were determined to find something they could use against Jesus. Yet, in his reply Pat insists that it was wise and prudent for Jesus to teach as Pat claims he did. Paul did deal with Christians' questions regarding marriage and divorce not many years down the road. So why would Jesus at that time teach against Moses, especially in view of all the consequences if he were to so do? It is prudent to hear and obey Paul's inspired teachings. But since Jesus settled everything on the issue of divorce (according to Pat) we must explain passages like "let them marry" in a way that harmonizes with Jesus' teachings. Bottom line: Pat's position requires that we accept teaching directed to the Jews and reject inspired teachings to Christians on the MDR issue.
Pat thinks his idea of Jesus' law on MDR does not punish people but rather keeps them from committing adultery. This is circular reasoning. You cannot prove an assertion based upon nothing but an assumption. When you see that Jesus addressed a current problem and did not teach contrary to the Law of Moses, you will see that Pat's teaching does indeed punish people (some innocent) and it actually results in people's committing fornication as it takes away marriage, which is God's tool to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:2).
My friend denies that Jesus contradicted Moses, and so do I. But instead of giving up his doctrine he thinks he has a way around this obvious problem. He says the teaching was merely "preparatory" and applied only to New Testament law. But one needs only to observe Jesus' audience and their reply, to see the irrationality of that argument.
Pat cannot bring himself to admit that "apoluo"-ing but not divorcing was and is a problem among the Jews; and he refuses to answer my queries about this situation, although he agreed to answer all questions. Jesus would surely have addressed the problem of putting away without proper divorce proceedings; and Pat's admitting this would obviously help my position and help the reader see the truth. Therefore, he did not answer. However, I believe the reader can understand that the passage commonly used to support the idea that a divorced person may not marry, is being misused to teach a doctrine that is not according to the will of God.
I want to repeat that if a problem of putting away without divorce existed, Jesus would surely have dealt with it. As I have proven, the problem did exist and we therefore know Jesus dealt with it. Since these scriptures we are discussing are the only ones about this issue, obviously he dealt with it here. But since Pat's position stands or falls upon the idea that Jesus dealt ONLY with legal divorce, he is only willing to say that Jesus dealt with the problem of "separation" by condemning divorce. But divorce and separation are two different things.
3. I asked Pat to explain how a man under the Law could possibly commit adultery by legally divorcing a wife and legally marrying another. It is noteworthy that he stated that a man would not commit adultery by divorcing his wife, regardless of the reason. He is more liberal than I on that point. Just putting away is adultery/treachery even if he does not marry another. The man had a right to marry another. His sin was "treachery" against his wife because he threw her out and therefore was not being faithful in his duties. Furthermore, his actions placed her in a very difficult situation that is said by Jesus to cause her to commit adultery.
This is the issue that Jesus dealt with, yet Pat says it is not so. He says that Jesus changed the law and that Jesus used the word "divorce" instead of "put away." But that does not help him because he says the new law of Jesus didn't apply until later. Of course, he recognizes the problem with asserting that Jesus contradicted Moses and he is just vainly trying to be consistent.
Pat misuses Romans 7, which I explained in my answer to his questions.
4. In his reply to #4, Pat stated that Jesus' New Testament law allows divorce only for the cause of fornication. But that is not what Jesus said. Jesus said if a man sends away his wife, except if it is because of fornication, he commits adultery against her. "Because of adultery" is something you have to read into the exception clause text, which is commonly done. Actually, Jesus was saying that the putting away he condemned would not result in adultery if the marriage was illegal/unscriptural--such as incestuous marriages. This, of course, makes perfect sense.
Follow-up question: Is God's marriage law (given by Moses) universal? If not, what if Florida recognizes jumping over a broomstick as being a divorce? Would the divorce be scriptural? Would it accomplish what God intended? Would it follow the example that he gave (Jer. 3:8)? Could a state also recognize "separation" as being divorce and not require anything at all? Wouldn't this put the world back in the situation before God's divorce law was given (Deut. 24)?
5. Jesus did not contrast his New Testament law with Old Testament law, as Pat stated in his answer. That would have been a reason for the Jews to kill him. He took issue with the Jews' misunderstanding and misapplications--not with Moses who taught God's law. (See Barnes notes.)
Question: What evidence can we find that indicates that Jesus' enemies understood Jesus to be a law giver and that he was speaking of future law? It was a discourse with no feedback from the Jews to support Pat's assertion; thus his statement that Jesus was giving new law is based upon assumption, as is his conclusion regarding what Jesus taught pertaining to divorce.
6. Pat agrees that we must use good hermeneutics, but he fails to get the point about building a doctrine based upon an "obscure" passage. Pat, your answer indicates you do not understand what is meant when one talks about an "obscure" passage. When I right click on "obscure," at the top of the thesaurus list is the phrase "difficult to understand." I agree that Matthew 5:32 is really not all that difficult to understand, but I'm not the one basing a doctrine on it and then forcing Paul's clear teaching (denying it actually) to conform to what some believe Jesus was teaching. The passage is difficult for many people, but that is mainly because of what others have taught them.
Conclusion
The clear teachings of Paul (1 Cor. 7:2; 8, 9 and 27, 28) prove my proposition. I have explained the teaching of Jesus in a way that harmonizes with Paul's teaching. So far, my opponent has unsuccessfully tried to make Paul's teachings harmonize with his convoluted, erroneous and problematic idea of what Jesus taught.