Previously I showed that Pat’s position cannot be true for a number of reasons. The one argument that destroys Pat’s position is that Jesus could not have said what Pat says he said without those comments contradicting Moses and therefore giving the Jews a reason to kill him. Pat’s retort was that the statement was “preparatory” and was intended to apply only when his new law came into effect. Pat thinks he proved his point by noting “preparatory” remarks Jesus made that did not contradict Moses. But the problem Pat faces is that Jesus was addressing a problem that was current. Pat has failed to provide evidence that the people understood Jesus to be speaking words that would apply to a future dispensation. My friend’s theory is totally divergent to the context of Matthew 19. We see that the Pharisees came to Jesus (verse 3). The next three verses contain Jesus’ reply. Then we see their response in verse 7, followed by “He [Jesus] saith unto them.”
Question:
Which is it: 1) “He saith unto them” or 2) “He saith unto people in a dispensation to come”?
Next, the very passage upon which Pat bases his doctrine begins with “And I say unto you.” Thus, it is obvious who Jesus’ audience is. Also, there is no question about WHEN it applied. The people that were addressed were told certain things and Jesus expected them to make corrections immediately. Am I wrong, Pat? Yes or no, please. If Jesus’ words didn’t apply to them then he lied and made them feel guilty for their sin when really the thing he condemned wasn’t a sin yet. We have no basis to say that Matthew 19:9 was merely “preparatory.” Only in desperation would one make such an argument, but Pat has to give some explanation, and he can’t give up the argument without giving up his belief that Jesus taught that divorced persons are still bound and may not marry. And when we observe that the Jews did not even charge Jesus with contradicting Moses it becomes more apparent that he actually said nothing related to MDR that contradicted Moses.
Pat’s doctrine is based upon what he believes to be Jesus’ teachings. Until he faces certain facts and gives up his erroneous belief he will have to continue to twist Paul’s teachings to conform to what he believes Jesus taught. For example, Romans 7:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 7:11 are passages that he clearly misapplies. I previously dealt with the Romans text. Now I want to deal with some other passages that Pat misuses.
Context, beginning with verse 7, is very important here. Paul talks about celibacy, but acknowledges that because people have different “gifts” marriage must not be denied. In verse 8 he speaks to the “unmarried and widows” saying that it is good that they be as he (unmarried), BUT “if they cannot contain, let them marry” to avoid lust and fornication (verse 2,9).
The above is very clear language that Pat has to deny because it is contrary to what he believes Jesus taught.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
It is important to note that Paul stopped talking about the “unmarried” and proceeded to talk about the “married.” He tells the wives not to “depart” from their husbands, which simply means “don’t leave.” Nevertheless, realizing that some would do so anyway because some husbands would be unbearable to live with, and some would be unfaithful, he said “but if you depart remain unmarried.” Now, needing something to support their doctrine, those who hold Pat’s position like to think and to assert that “depart” means “divorce” and that Paul tells the divorced women they cannot marry another. But “chorizo” is properly translated. We know what “depart” means and that it results in nothing but a non-legal and unscriptural separation, which some errantly call divorce. Thus, it is presumptuous to reject the context, assert that Paul is dealing with the unmarried, and contend that he is teaching that one who is divorced may not marry. The fact that Paul makes no mention of the “cause” for the assumed divorce presents a real problem for Pat’s position. Pat, are we to believe that Paul failed to tell the whole truth—leaving it to the responsibility of the recipients of the letter to learn what Jesus said and determine what he meant? The truth is, Paul was simply telling those who separated, or would (for whatever reason), to reconcile or remain in that state (because of the “present distress,” verse 26).
It might be that “context” alone is not good enough for Pat and that he needs to hear from scholars before he will see that Paul did not teach celibacy. Since his position on MDR is based upon what he asserts that scholars say about “apoluo” you would think he would be quick to accept what they say on this text.
The following scholars explain “depart” and/or “let her remain unmarried”:
The Greek New Testament by Bloomfield - : "From the use of καταλλ [reconcile] 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."
Indeed, it is plain.
STRONG "[Grk. 5563] chorizo (kho-rid'-zo) from 5561; to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away:--depart, put asunder, separate."
Below is a comment from Robertson that makes it clear that he thought Paul was talking about "separation" when he spoke of departing:
Robertson's Word Pictures: "But and if she depart….If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she get separated…."
JFB – “But and if she depart — or ‘be separated.’ If the sin of separation has been committed, that of a new marriage is not to be added (Matt. 5:32).”
Indeed, to marry would result in adultery as Jesus stated, but not because the woman was divorced but because she was not divorced.
Since Paul’s command was directed to the woman that is or would be separated, rather than divorced, it is imprudent and even presumptuous to try to use 1 Corinthians 7:11 to support the false assumption that Paul taught celibacy. That idea is contrary to everything recorded in the chapter relating to marriage. In essence, Pat’s view says that in this text Paul is “forbidding to marry,” but that is not consistent with the context or the language nor is it consistent with the gist of Paul’s teaching since he was totally against requiring celibacy and classified it as “doctrines of devils.”
Below are two versions that translate “unmarried” in verse 11 as “remain as she is.”
Waymouth - "Or if she has already left him, let her either remain as she is or be reconciled to him….”
Montgomery - "Or if she has already left him let her either remain as she is, or be reconciled to him)….”
The very fact that “reconciliation” is commanded, rather than marriage, is indicative of the fact that divorce is not under consideration. Evidently, when Paul spoke of being “loosed” he understood it to be legal and that it ended the marriage and freed the parties to marry. Three times he said to let them marry (or have a marriage, 2,9,36) and in at least four additional instances in the chapter Paul emphasized that it is not sinful to marry. To take away the right to marry from those who have no marriage is to be guilty of “forbidding to marry.” Obviously, to tell a “man” he cannot marry a “man” would not be what Paul was talking about because it would not be disallowing him to marry a woman.
Question:
If Paul had intended to tell the divorced (who fall into the category of the “unmarried”) that they must remain celibate, would he not have done it when he was talking to the “unmarried”?
It is clear that Paul allowed marriage for the “unmarried” and his inspired command should settle it. But Pat seems determined to explain away Paul’s command. He asserts that Romans 7:1-4 makes a distinction between being “bound” and being divorced. Notice Barnes’ comments on 1 Corinthians 7:27: “Marriage is often thus represented as a tie, a bond, etc. See [Ro 7:2]. Seek not to be loosed. Seek not a dissolution (~lusin~) of the connection, either by divorce or by a separation….”
“Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned….”
In contrast to Paul, Pat teaches that one is destined for hell if he is involved in a divorce and marries again, unless he initiated the divorce for fornication. Do we see that in Paul’s teachings? No, careless teachers who misunderstand the words of Jesus simply assume and assert this.
Verses 27-28 present a big problem for the position Pat holds. Pat may insist that this is talking about people who have never been married. Nevertheless, it is clear that Paul is talking to those who are “bound” (married) and he is saying, “Don’t try to get loosed from the marriage.” He then gives advice to the man who is “loosed” (by death or divorce) and advises that he should not seek a wife. But if he does marry he does not sin. It is evident that Paul is not specifically addressing widows here, as he addresses them in verse 39.
Those who teach the doctrine Pat holds will be able to accept Paul’s teachings only after they realize Jesus did not teach that a divorced person commits adultery in marrying another.
Jesus addressed a problem that was current in his day—men’s “putting away” their wives without proper divorce proceedings.
This problem still exists today among the Jews. Jesus explained that such action (putting away) was treacherous/adulterous and that these men were causing their wives to commit adultery. The only way to make sense of Jesus’ teaching is to understand that “apoluo” means “put away” (and it does) and that the woman “put away” was still married because her husband refused to give her the required certificate of divorce. Had he done that, regardless of the reason for the divorce, she could “go be another man’s wife” (Deut. 24:1-4).
Pat’s position stands or falls on whether or not his “bound” but not married theory has merit. God gave a procedure for dissolving a marriage so the woman could "go be another man's wife," yet this strange doctrine of Pat’s is saying that a divorce really does not do what it was designed to do. Pat does not believe God’s teaching on divorce—he says Jesus changed it completely. But if we reject the universal divorce law we can’t even define what divorce is and we reject the personal example that God gave (Jer. 3:8).
Marriage is the ONLY thing that the scriptures teach binds a couple together. Take away the “marriage” and the “bond” no longer exists. If the bond still exists after divorce then the "bill of divorcement" that God commanded be given to the wife means nothing (Deut. 24:2; Mark 10:3-5). The fact that Jesus asked, “What did Moses command you?” clearly indicates that he was looking to the Law for answers, rather than rejecting it and making a new law. But Pat refuses to see this and accuses me of not understanding the fundamental fact that the New Testament church does not look to the Old Testament for its authority for worship and practice. Is it not true that “All scripture is profitable for doctrine” (2Tim3:16)?
Pat stated, “Robert begins by suggesting it violates God’s justice for his marriage law to change from the old covenant to the new covenant….” This is a classic straw man, which Pat wastes much space battling. If an injustice exists, it is Pat’s requirement that a young man or woman, totally innocent of marital sin, must be forced into celibacy because his or her guilty spouse managed to arrive at the court house first. This idea punishes the innocent and encourages divorce proceedings, yet Pat insists his position, which he attributes to Jesus, has no problems.
Did Jesus make a mistake in changing God’s universal divorce law? No, he didn’t change it. If the Bible contains a new law on divorce it is the teachings of Paul found in the New Testament. But my friend will not accept what Paul says; he has to explain it to harmonize with what he has assumed Jesus taught. But Jesus dealt with putting away. Those who hold the position that Jesus condemned divorce actually contribute to the promotion of the very thing Jesus sought to bring to an end—treachery, adultery and fornication. Before I can be accused of promoting adultery it has to be proven that Jesus changed the Law at the time He spoke regarding putting away. But Jesus made sure that reasonable open-minded people would not make that mistake (Matt. 5:17-19).
Those who are disposed to take upon themselves the job of “forbidding to marry” are often met with situations and circumstances that are such that they cannot make a sound judgment. Because of the divergent marriage and divorce laws it is sometimes impossible to determine whether one involved in a divorce was ever married. And on and on we could go.
Pat asserted that no revelation from God (that applies to us) tells us what constitutes a divorce. Yet the passages he uses in his effort to deny my proposition were spoken to Jews while Jewish law was in effect. And it is important to note that the very passage that was the CENTER of controversy was Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This passage makes some things very clear: 1) a divorced woman could “go be another man’s wife”; 2) the divorce certificate was effective when she received it and was useful to her; and 3) God gave a command that men do this rather than simply send away the woman, which would leave her in doubt as to her marital status, cause “her to commit adultery” and be “adultery against her.” In addition, God gave us a personal example to teach us the need to give the “bill of divorcement” (Jer. 3:8) and Jesus confirmed that it was a command (Mark 10:3, 5). We have all this revelation from God regarding divorce; nevertheless we are told it is meaningless because Jesus made a new law. Friends, marriage binds and divorce unbinds. This was a law given by God for a purpose and Jesus did not go against God by changing it.