#1
Pat’s Doctrine:
Sue and Bill are married, and Bill commits fornication. Sue hurriedly files the divorce papers “for fornication,” but Bill immediately files for the same reason. The judge makes his determination by flipping a coin. Bill wins and is issued the divorce. Sue, though innocent, is forbidden (by Pat) to marry but Bill may.
[Pat may explain that it was not “for fornication.” Yet any who would marry Bill has all the proof Pat requires. Pat’s position involves human judgment, and uncertainty is inherent. Yet he insists his doctrine has no problems.]
The Truth:
Sue and Bill are married, and Bill commits fornication. Bill is penitent. Sue is touched by Bill's disposition and decides to forgive him, and they work things out.
#2
Pat's Doctrine:
Sue and Bill are married, and Bill commits fornication. Bill decides that he wants his new lover to be his wife instead of Sue, but preacher Pat tells him that he would have to live in celibacy if he divorced Sue. So, Bill murders Sue and beats the rap. Bill repents of the murder and marries his original lover. Pat performs the ceremony.
The Truth:
Sue and Bill are married, and Bill commits fornication. Sue separates from Bill and decides to give him time to make up his mind. Bill, not pressured or threatened with a life of celibacy, thinks about his wrongs and decides to reconcile with Sue. Bill apoluo-s his lover and begs for Sue's forgiveness, and they work things out.
Deu.25:1;Pro.17:15,26
Pat misrepresents me when he says, “If Robert’s theory is correct, a man could simply kick his wife out of the house ‘for fornication’ without a divorce and marry another.”
I have clearly stated that the “cause” for divorce is not Jesus’ concern. Since the exception clause is the crux of Pat’s misunderstanding I’ll deal with it again. The phrase “except for fornication” was given ONLY in Matthew and was meant to explain that adultery did not result when a man put away a woman for fornication, such as incest.
Mark 10:12 “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
Moses authorized only the men to divorce their wives (Deut24). Therefore, what Jesus indicates is an actual possibility could not be divorce. This means “put away” must not have reference to divorce. A woman could "repudiate" and separate from her husband. But, according to Jesus, if she did she would commit adultery if she married another. And, the cause of the separation/repudiation is not an issue, except for those who insist Jesus contradicted Moses and that Jesus was the instigator of the “forbidding to marry” doctrine that Paul classified as “doctrines of devils.”
Pat errantly says Robert thinks “…Moses allowed a man to kick his wife out of the house without divorcing her, and that problem is what Jesus is dealing with in Matthew 19:8-9 and etc….”
We agree that Moses commanded the men to give the bill of divorcement. But he “suffered” sending away in the sense that he issued no punishment, even though from the beginning it was wrong. The putting away that the evil men got away with was therefore different from the divorce itself that was commanded for the benefit of the women. (See: http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-jewish-women-in-chains.htm .)
Pat says, “…Moses required the divorce.” YES! Since this is true, the only thing left that could apply to what Moses “suffered” was “putting away”--a thing that the Jews are still practicing with impunity.
Pat said, “…Moses allowed putting away as long as it was accompanied by a bill of divorce.” Thus, he contradicts his own argument because he previously stated that Moses commanded the divorce.
The fallacy of Pat’s argument on Mark 10:4 is apparent. Notice the text: "And they said, ‘Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.’" In the preceding verse, Jesus asked, "What did Moses command you?" He did not ask what Moses suffered. Then "they" replied to the question, but not exactly as it was asked. They added "suffered," which means: "liberty, license, allow," etc. At any rate, we might be able to understand how "they" thought Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was something that was suffered. But Jesus replied, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept." This helps confirm the fact that Jews were failing to obey the precept. They changed the wording from "precept" to "suffer" but Jesus did not let them get away with it. He set them straight. Will Pat also hear Jesus?
Pat talks about what constitutes a divorce, but he is just muddying the water. There was/is no scriptural divorce without the certificate. Pat insists that the “putting away” is the divorce, at least in Jesus’ teachings, but Moses notes three parts to a scriptural divorce (Deut.24:1-2;Mk10:9). Nevertheless, when a divorce is granted by a judge it is final. The couple would then not be in the “separated” state in need of reconciliation (1Cor7:11).
Scenario:
A Pharisee hears Jesus speak Mark 10:11 and asks Pat how he can correct apoluo-ing his innocent wife (now remarried)? Pat replies, “Jesus’ words do not apply to you.” After the cross Jesus asks the Pharisee if he has repented. The Pharisee blames Pat. Pat tells the woman she must now divorce.
[My friends, should you listen to men who refuse to apply basic study rules, or to Paul who says, regarding the unmarried, “LET THEM MARRY” because they “DO NOT SIN.”]
Pat cannot grasp the meaning of Matthew 5:31-32 and interprets it as Jesus’ contradicting Moses. If Jesus was taking issue with Moses, why did he not say so? Actually, Jesus dealt with sayings of men (though often similar to Moses’) who thought it was all right to divorce for any reason if the certificate was given. It wasn’t. (Remember, the divorce was commanded for the women’s benefit--not the men’s.) The language and context indicate that “putting away” was the main issue. Jesus did not say, “Whosoever shall put away his wife with or without a divorce certificate commits adultery.” Yet this is what Pat needs it to say and insists that it says.
Once again, Pat misrepresents me: “Robert thinks if Jesus taught New Testament law while on earth, then he contradicted Moses.”
The issue has to do with what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount—nothing more. Did he take issue with God (Moses’ Law) or the Pharisees? I have shown from the context and provided links to sound scholars and teachers who show that it was the latter.
Pat stated, “…All preparatory teaching was ‘said’ to people it didn’t apply to at the time it was spoken.”
Pat is slow to give up the false idea that the “preparatory” teaching theory saves his doctrine. No contextual evidence supports his assertion that “Jesus was giving law that would be binding in the future….” The logical conclusion is that Jesus addressed Jewish men and it applied to them, which means if Jesus said what Pat says he said then he indisputably contradicted Moses. Pat knows this is a real problem for his position. This might explain why he says Jesus contradicted Moses and, in almost the same breath, says Jesus didn’t contradict Moses.
I asked Pat to elaborate on the “transition point,” i.e. when Jesus changed from addressing Jews to addressing people in the future (Mt.19). He replied by noting passages that have nothing to do with divorce. Pat, everyone agrees that the conversation began as a discussion about the Law, so when did Jesus change from discussing law to giving new law?
Amazingly, Pat assumes and asserts that Jesus’ use of “but” proves that Jesus was teaching contrary to Moses’ teachings. It may prove he was taking issue with someone, but it was not God. It is evident from the context (and is common sense) that Jesus would not contradict Moses’ teachings when speaking to people about their evil notions and unrighteous practices (Mt5:20). Pat has no answer for why the Jews did not attack Jesus for allegedly contradicting Moses. That is because Jesus obviously didn’t commit that sin. Had he done so they would have used it at his trial.
“…But how can this be so when Jesus quotes OT law in all six cases? Since when does a correct quote of God’s law represent a false notion?”
The quotes were not all exact, some were not quotes. A careful study of the texts indicates Jesus was quoting what the Jews were saying to justify their errant notions and practices. Space will not permit me to deal with these texts specifically. My previous article contained a link to some material that explains these texts well. Pat would have you disregard the fact that most sound brethren disagree with him on the “contrast” idea, stating that they are mere men, yet he insists that the lexicons (written by men) prove his doctrine.
Pat says, “I would use the term ‘contrasting’….” I understand. That does not sound nearly as bad as “contradict” or “take issue with.” Nevertheless, they are all sliced from the same log of bologna.
“Indeed, Jesus’ teaching on MDR is different than Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This confirms Deuteronomy 24:1-4 doesn’t apply today.”
Pat’s argument is unsound, as the evidence that Jesus did not contrast Moses is very strong; and since virtually everyone disagrees with Pat, he hurts his credibility by making the argument.
Were all of Jesus’ teachings “preparatory” teachings? How about Jesus’ words to the “rich young ruler”?
Matthew 19:10 clearly PROVES Jesus’ words applied when spoken. Pat’s argument is false and Jesus could not and did not contradict Moses. Therefore, he could not have taught new law on divorce. “Apoluo,” then, must mean “put away.” Translating “apoluo” as divorce has served the devil well.
Pat said, “Robert calls Deuteronomy 24:1-4 the ‘universal marriage definition (law),’ but he gives no evidence for that.” Yet he knows no other texts, other then Jeremiah 3:8, that enlightens us as to what God considers a divorce. The two texts teach the same thing, but Pat rejects them both and insists Jesus did the same.
Pat stated, “We certainly can learn from things ‘written aforetime.’” We agree on that statement—now let us put it into practice by learning what God teaches about the divorce certificate that Jesus discussed. Pat wants to reject Deuteronomy 24:1-4, even while using as the basis for his teachings a discussion that had this text as its focal point. Also, Pat rejects the only example in the entire Bible that details the divorce procedure, and it was God himself procuring the divorce.
“Robert wants to pick out this one OT law [Deut24:1] to apply today so he can allow a put away woman to remarry.”
First, a “put away” woman may not remarry because she would then be an adulteress. Pat says I’m fallen from grace, but I’m confident the readers of this debate understand that “trying to be justified by the law” is totally different from using Moses’ teaching to make sense of Jesus’ teachings and understand the will of God regarding divorce. A difference also exists in the universal divorce law and laws that are directed to the church pertaining to salvation, work and worship.
“Robert mentions Matthew 5:20 that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, and that is certainly true, as Jesus [IMMEDIATELY] follows up with six cases where NT law is stricter than OT law.”
Pat admits the context and then boldly asserts something that is contrary to the context and is a grave accusation against our Lord. Unbelievable!
I stated that Pat’s view of Jesus’ teachings makes things worse for men and women. The Law allowed divorced women to marry again. Pat says Jesus changed it and now a divorced PERSON may not remarry. BUT it is PAT, not Jesus, who says one commits adultery if he remarries. Paul says “let them marry” for “they do not sin.” I believe it is safe to go with Paul’s clear teaching.
Pat explains that from the time of John the NT law has been preached. True. But this does not help Pat with the problem of who Jesus’ audience was when he addressed “divorce.”
Of course there are unlawful marriages, but Pat wants to break up legal/lawful/scriptural marriages and tell people they must have no marriage. Of course, this is contrary to Paul’s clear teachings (1Cor7:2,8-9;27-28;1Tim4:1-3). The “exception clause” was about unlawful “marriages.”
The text states that the departed woman may return to her husband. Pat, since you say that a divorced woman does not have a husband to whom to return, why do you apply this text to her? Your point could make sense only if the woman has a husband, but you have said a divorced woman does not have one.
Pat said, “The wisdom of God trumps the wisdom of men every time….” yet he offered two pages of lexicons, etc., trying to prove “apoluo” means divorce, and he rejects Paul’s statement from the “wisdom of God” to “let them [the unmarried] marry.” Whose wisdom is the idea that the divorced are not “unmarried” (1Tim.4:1-3;2Cor4:4;1Cor2:13)?
I explained how “agamos” (unmarried) can mean one thing in one verse and something else in another. Pat did not refute my comments.
Pat insists that I’m inconsistent in interpreting the word “unmarried.” Words have different meanings—and the meaning is determined by the context as the esteemed Bloomfield pointed out relative to this very text.
Pat asserts that verse 8 can “…only be talking about people who have never been married….” Of course Paul made no hint that such was true. It is an assumption and is pure conjecture. It is an unsubstantiated theory that men have devised to get around Paul’s clear teaching as they unwittingly endeavor to defend the devil’s doctrine known as “forbidding to marry.”
Pat refuses to see the point. The text is not about whether certain “marriages” are legal; it is about forbidding one to have a marriage at all, which Pat does as he disobeys clear precepts (1Cor7:2). He admits divorce ends the marriage but unhappily misuses Romans 7 to say they are somehow, apart from marriage, bound, and that such means they may not marry. I have previously explained this text.
Divorce and remarriage is a tough subject for gospel preachers. We must determine if we are going to go with the flow of tradition or take a stand for the truth and trust God for the outcome.