Robert Waters to Ethan Longhenry and Bible Matters list members.
Ethan:
I feel compelled to respond to Mr. Waters, as I have done many times before, and again urge him to consider the points in which he is in error on MDR.
Robert:
Brother Ethan, you were very quick to respond to my post. There are people who will reject the truth I taught simply because someone gave an "answer." We (which includes you) will be held accountable for our words and we know what the Bible teaches about putting a stumbling block before a brother. By the way, do you refer to all brethren with whom you differ as "Mr." or is this just limited to MDR - the unforgivable sin?
RW: If the common teaching among us was what I presented and YOU were the one deviating from it would it then be alright for me to say, in a smug manner, that you are in error on MDR? The intelligent and truth seeking readers on this list are not impressed with charges of "error" being used as an argument or device. I'll let the reader decide, after they hear the evidence, who is telling the truth.
Robert says:
Indeed, one must repent of sinful deeds and if one is truly going to commit adultery by marrying then he must not do it. But, the idea that a divorced person commits adultery when he/she marries another is based on the assumption that Jesus was speaking of "divorce" when He was actually speaking of only "putting away," which does not mean divorce in English but is tantamount to a permanent separation.
ELDV: It is interesting to note, contra Mr. Waters, that Jesus uses the word "separation" (chorizo) in Matthew 19:6 when He answers the question of the Pharisees regarding divorce (apoluo). Jesus says, "What God has joined let not man separate [chorizo]." Since Greek seems to have a perfectly good word to describe separation (and the separation can be long lasting; cf. 1 Cor. 7:10-11), why would Jesus bother using chorizo in v. 6 and apoluo in v. 9?
Robert:
The answer to the question above does not help Ethan. There are, and have been since Old Testament times, various words from which one may choose to describe something or some action. APOLUO was chosen in Mat19:9 as the word to describe what the Pharisees were doing. The ASV NEVER translates APOLUO as divorce. It is translated various other ways but those who teach what Ethan teaches commonly use "put away" and "divorce" interchangeable. This is reckless. The fact is, one can "put away" without divorcing? Why would that be bad in some cases? I shall put it in the form of a question to brother Ethan: How would you like it if the law only allowed wives to divorce men and your wife put you away (repudiated you, sent you away, put you away) and married another, but refused to give you the "bill of divorcement" (Apostasion), which would allow you to marry another? Remember, as it was under the Law, if you were to be caught with another woman you would be committing adultery. Whether you admit to not liking it or not, such "putting away" was called "treachery" and it was what God hated (Mal2:16). Do you not find it strange that God commanded the "bill of divorcement?" There was a reason, and it was as Mike Willis explained and which I also have explained. Ethan is in denial regarding the clear command of Moses.
Now, back to your argument; APOSTASION is a word that means divorce, and is so translated in the KJV, ASV and other reputable versions. Another word that is translated "divorce" by some versions is LUSIS, which is found in 1Cor7:27. In view of the present distress, without note of any reasons, Paul says, "seek not to be loosed" (divorced). Now, this was said in contrast with the word "bound", which means married. Contrary to the teachings of those who misunderstand Jesus' teachings you cannot be "bound" to someone to whom you are not married. Furthermore, Strong gives "divorce" as being the meaning of LUSIS.
[Grk. 3080] lusis (loo'-sis) from 3089; a loosening, i.e. (specially), divorce:--to be loosed.
Ethan continues:
The Pharisees then ask Jesus about Moses' declaration regarding the ability of men to put away their wives. Jesus says that "from the beginning it has not been so." The entire basis of His argument is that we know from the beginning that God joins a man and a woman and this union is not to be separated.
It is manifestly evident from the text that the use of apoluo concords to our word "divorce." All lexicography points in that direction; BDAG, easily considered the best of all Greek lexicography, gives meaning 5 of apoluo as "to dissolve a marriage relationship, to divorce," and on p. 118 lists many citations and references for the understanding of the term.
Robert:
First, lexicographers often determine the meaning of a word the same way as the rest of us - by the context in which it is used. In Mt. 19:1, Joseph was of a mind to "put away" (apoluo) Mary because he thought she was with child from another man. The word for wife is the same as the word for woman and the word for husband is the same as the word for man. Thus, these "authorities" have often concluded that Joseph and Mary were married at the time he learned she was pregnant, and included "divorce" in their definition. But this is an untrue assumption because they were only betrothed - they married LATER. They were not married before they were married.
Second, should we put our trust in lexicographers? What one of them was not influenced by Catholicism, which was responsible for starting the idea that marriage is a sacrament and practiced (and continues to so do) the forbidden doctrine Paul described as "forbidding to marry," i.e. forbidding persons who have no marriage the right to a marriage.
Third, there is no more sure way to know the meaning of a word than to look to various respected translations. There are many that do not translate APOLUO as divorce. The ASV, YLT, and Darby to name a few. The ASV has long been considered to be the most accurate and trusted version. (But, of course, it must now be attacked along with anything or anyone that opposes…)
Ethan continues:
It is sinful to separate that which God has joined together. The penalty of separating that which God has joined together is the inability of marrying another without committing adultery.
Robert:
We all agree that man and woman are to be faithful to each other and that it is sinful to do otherwise. However, God not only "put away" but also gave the "bill of divorcement" to unfaithful Israel. I find no passage in the entire Bible that says one divorced is to be punished with celibacy. That idea is an assumption based entirely on the idea that Jesus changed the Law in telling the Pharisees that DIVORCED persons commit adultery when they marry. That cannot possibly be what he said. He was talking to people who would have jumped at the chance to condemn, bring to trial and execute Jesus for just such as that. They failed and had to trump up charges. Who is willing to believe that the Pharisees were just to slow or unintelligent to seize such an opportunity? To affirm that the Pharisees succeeded is to take their side and to oppose Christ.
Ethan continues:
This explains the response of the disciples in Matthew 19:10 and Jesus' response in vv. 11-12; how can you possibly explain the disciples' reaction if Jesus is merely pontificating on a well-known controversy in Judaism?
Robert:
10 "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry."
First, it was not the Pharisees but the disciples who asked the above question. Certainly, they were not intending to place doubt upon the wisdom of God in instituting marriage. They understood Jesus to be saying that if the marriage is not going to be legitimate, such as the case where the woman is a forbidden foreign wife, brother's ex-wife, or other forbidden relatives, it is best to not marry that particular woman (Gen. 24:37; Lev 20:17; 20:21; 1Cor5:1).
11. But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.
Those who could receive the saying would simply be the ones to whom it applied - those whose marriage was illegal/unscriptural and resulted in fornication.
12. For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
To understand the above passage we must go back to verse 10. The disciples brought up the matter of it not being good to marry if the "case of the man be so with his wife." What case? An illegal/unscriptural marriage. In the above passage, Jesus insinuates that men who cannot find a women, except one that is not lawful to marry, had best remain celibate. Those who are eunuchs, having not the capability to have sex, certainly would have no problem with not marrying. They would have no problem accepting the saying.
Robert said:
I want you to please seriously consider something. Jesus could not possibly have changed the Law from "divorced persons have a right to marry" (Deut. 24:1-3) to "divorced persons commit adultery when they marry." Had he done so he would have transgressed the Law, committed sin and would not have been the sinless Savior. If He truly had done that which many charge He did the Pharisees would have succeeded in entrapping Jesus - causing him to take sides on the controversial issue and, most importantly, they would have charged him with contradicting Moses. There is no indication in any biblical text that the Pharisees succeeded in their efforts. Certainly they did not charge Jesus with contradicting Moses on whether a divorced person had the right to marry.
ELDV: What, like He did in Mark 7?
Mark 7 describes Jesus answering the charge of the Pharisees regarding His disciples violating a tradition of the elders by not washing their hands before eating. In so doing Jesus makes the point that it is not what goes into a man, which defiles him, but that which comes out of his mouth that defiles him.
Robert:
Barnes: "Cannot defile him. Cannot render his soul polluted; cannot make him a sinner, so as to need this purifying as a religious observance."
Barnes makes no note of Jesus contradicting the Law here, and it is easy to see why. It was the human tradition that Jesus dealt with, not the Law.
Ethan:
He is not replacing the Law. He is exposing the fact that the Law allowed divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites, and that from the beginning such was not God's intent. As with many other issues, Jesus returns to the way things were in the beginning to foreshadow the upcoming covenant in His blood.
Robert:
First, Ethan makes a big play on the phrase "hardness of heart". Indeed, if men had behaved themselves well in their dealing with their wives God would not have needed to inspire Moses to have "suffered" putting away and to have given the command to divorce rather than just doing nothing about the treacherous practice of "putting away."
Before any credence can be placed on what Ethan argues we must be willing to accept that what Jesus said was not applicable to the Jews, but was just teachings that would go into effect when His law went into effect after His death. And we must also be willing to accept that they were commanded something but not expected to do anything, a concept that is irrational and unscriptural. (Deut. 12:32) "What thing so ever I command you, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
Asserting that what Jesus said to sinners under the Law was not applicable to them, that it did not apply to them, and that they could practice what he condemned is not only a dodge or quibble, it implies that Jesus spoke without authority and that He did not tell the truth.
On the other hand, if Jesus' did change the Law the Jews would have had to violate the Law by stopping being faithful to their wives, those who they had married that had been divorced, IMMEDIATELY. Also, the women that became "another man's wife" would also SUDDENLY be adulterers. In addition, even if the Jews (before the cross) did not have to obey the words of Jesus there is no evidence that any of the people taught on the day of Pentecost, or thereafter, were told their legal marriages were adulterous. The only examples we have are where the marriage was not legal [Mark 6:18 (Lev. 20:2) 1 Cor. 5:1] and that is in perfect harmony with what I have shown that Jesus actually taught in Matt. 19:9; 5:32.
Ethan continues:
And finally, it is thoroughly clear from Matthew 19:8 that Jesus contradicts the Law of Moses. The text is meaningless otherwise!
Robert:
It is truly sad that a professed disciple of Christ would charge Jesus with transgressing the Law (which is what he did if he contradicted it) rather than give up a position that can only be true if he did not contradict the Law.
Unless Ethan has changed his position I am confused as to his stand. Below is a quote from Ethan in one of the few exchanges that I have had with him:
"Who ever said that I was saying that Jesus was teaching contrary to the Law? Again, everything Jesus taught could easily have been practiced by Jew and would never fall under condemnation of the Law."
I think I was scolded by a list owner for misrepresenting Ethan when I first thought he was saying Jesus contradicted the Law. Now it appears he is clearly saying Jesus contradicted the Law. The URL to follow is an article where I dealt with Ethan on this: http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-contradict.htm
Robert:
If APOLUO, in the context of Matt. 19:9, does not refer to divorce then everything He taught makes perfect sense and we can draw a conclusion that, when taught, does not drive people away from Jesus, require divorce, split up homes needlessly, and which should not cause division among God's people. It has been documented that there are about a dozen different views on MDR and virtually all of them are based upon or variants of what is referred to as the "traditional" position, which is based upon the false idea that APOLUO means "divorce" and that Jesus' teachings changed the Law (while the Law was still in effect) regarding the right of a divorced person to marry.
ELDV:
You have misinterpreted the nature of Jesus' teachings and attempt to reconcile Jesus' words with the Law, something demonstrated by the text to be impossible. Jesus stands against the teachings of the Law of Moses on divorce because they were there because of hardness of heart, not truth. That which God allowed for Israel was anathema for us.
Robert:
So, Ethan, are you urging the reader to view the Law of Moses as being written merely to appease men and not because it was what God wanted? Are you against divorce altogether? Do you think the men were allowed to divorce "for any cause," only for fornication, some "uncleanness" (determined by the husband) or that they were commanded to give the "bill of divorcement" in cases where the marriage was basically dead?
Robert:
Jesus was dealing with the evil practice of men sending their wives out of the house but not giving them their freedom to marry. This is apparently why Deut. 24:1-3 was written.
ELDV: I want everyone to notice a key word: "apparently." This word betrays the fact that Mr. Waters has yet to provide ANY Scripture that speaks in this regard. He has not produced ONE Scripture from all of the Old Testament that clearly indicates that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was written because of "men sending their wives out of the house but not giving them their freedom to marry."
Robert:
If we read from a version that is accurate or have not already set our mind to the idea that "put away" equals "divorce" then by just reading Deut. 24:1-3 and Matt. 19:3-12 we can see what men were apparently doing,. Nevertheless, there are other Old Testament passages that support this thinking:
Ezr 10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.
The word translated "separate" is: [Heb. 914] badal (baw-dal') a primitive root; to divide (in variation senses literally or figuratively, separate, distinguish, differ, select, etc.):-- (make, put) difference, divide (asunder), (make) separate (self, -ation), sever (out), X utterly. (Strong's)
There was no command to divorce those women, why? They were not legal marriages. The relationships were not pleasing to God and simply needed to be ended by permanent separation.
Isa 50:1 - "Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away."
This passage is very important because it emphasizes the importance of the "bill of divorcement" and teaches us that until there is an actual legal divorce (with the papers) there is still hope for reconciliation. It also clearly illustrates that "put away" does not mean "divorce". Evidently God did not deal treacherously with Israel by simply putting her away and leaving it at that. There was a "separation" but no divorce at this point, as was evidently the case in the following passage:
Mal 2:14, 15 "Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth." In the above passage is the illusion to the abuse of a wife (treachery) probably by having been "put away", and the passage states that the covenant is yet intact. Such would be the case because "put away" is not divorce, and a marriage covenant is not ended by merely "putting away". Marriages were ended only by both "divorcing" and "putting away" (Deut. 24:1-4).
Ethan continues: Robert: Second, it is very clear from the text (Deut. 24:1-3) that there is a command different and separate from the one noted above (having to do with not taking the wife back). Furthermore, Jesus confirmed it by asking, "What did Moses command you?" (Mark 10:3) Was Jesus talking about Moses' teaching about not taking one back that a man had divorced and who had married another? Robert: ELDV: I see that Mr. Waters has read a lot into this passage. I confess that I do not see anything involving a "bill of divorce" vs. a simple "putting away" here. Robert: Ethan continues: Robert: Ethan continues: Robert: Second, Ethan denies what is clearly stated in Deut. 24:1-3 and affirmed by Jesus (Mark 10:3). Robert: ELDV: Robert: "Sexual immorality" is translated from the Greek term porneia: fornication or unlawful sexual intercourse in general (Arndt & Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; Moulton & Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament; Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). The term fornication was commonly used of "harlotry," "adultery," "incest," "sodomy," and even "unlawful marriages,"…" Now please tell us: Is my observation that "incest, sodomy, and unlawful marriages" "sexually deviant behavior" irrational or error? I think we are in agreement here, but my explanation of the exception clause makes sense and you have not refuted it. Ethan then stated his beliefs and practices that are based upon his assumption of what Jesus taught. I believe he calls this "circular reasoning." There are in fact numerous assumptions that must be accepted as fact before one can have confidence in Ethan's position. Below is a link to my material noting these assumptions: http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-marriage-doctrine.htm Robert: ELDV: Robert: Second, it IS a "New Testament" example of a marriage that was "unlawful", which would therefore fall under the category of "porneia" and would be a case where one should simply "put away". No divorce would be needed. Robert: ELDV: Robert: Robert: Now, those who would defend Halbrook's teaching would simply say one is not "loosed" unless he divorced "for fornication." But that is a false assumption based upon the idea that Jesus actually changed the Law of Moses regarding who has a right to marry. ELDV: Robert: Upon what basis does one conclude that one who has been divorced and marries another has "multiple spouses?" Ethan's entire doctrine is supported by the "good circular reasoning" that he talks about and charges me with. His circular reasoning does not prove that persons divorced are still married or bound to one after a divorce. That thought is not even rational. Robert: ELDV: First of all, I have been more than willing to discuss these matters; it ought to be known that a previous conversation between myself and Mr. Waters is available at http://www.deusvitae.com/faith/debates/index.html Robert: Ethan continues: Robert: Ethan: Robert: Ethan: Why would Mr. Waters want to base his arguments on that which is due to hardness of heart? Robert: We have not heard from Brother Halbrook. Ethan Longhenry has taken it upon himself to speak for him. I expect that if we hear from Ron it will be him saying that Ethan has done an excellent job and there is no need for him to respond. Well, Ethan did not make a defense against the charge that his and Halbrook's doctrine is unjust and indicts God with being unjust. Ethan also did not respond to the following: However, Halbrook's assertion does not harmonize with Paul's teachings. Paul stated that "forbidding to marry" (which applies to us if we tell "unmarried" persons they cannot marry) was "doctrines of devils" (1Tim4:1-3). He said to let everyone have a spouse (1Cor. 7:2). He said to let the "unmarried" marry and that such is better for them than to "burn" (1Cor7:8,9). He said the "loosed" (divorced) do not sin if they marry (1Cor7:27,28). Now, if we can just agree that those that have been divorced are indeed "unmarried" we will have made some real progress, because Paul says to "let them marry". Sadly though, whenever this truth is taught in a public forum there will always be someone who will respond with their assertions that divorced persons are still bound and that if they marry they commit adultery against a spouse that may even be lawfully married to another. The best explanation Ethan could give is that it is punishment. But neither he nor anyone else, who holds his views, are able to explain why the innocent divorced person must be punished. It is a serious flaw in his doctrine. I am amazed that anyone who loves truth and believes the Bible could act with confidence in defending a doctrine that they have been shown can only be true if Jesus transgressed the Law - a doctrine that can only be true if God is unjust and requires his servants to deal unjustly - a doctrine (required celibacy) which can be circumvented (a loop-hole) by murder.
This also goes completely against the proper interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which represents a situational law where the only command is for a man to not remarry a woman with whom he was formerly married after she had been the wife of another. I have written two articles making this argument:
First, Ethan emphasizes the fact that the men were not allowed to take back a woman that married another man. Strangely, that is what brethren today say a divorced person MUST do if they are to have a marriage at all, and their doctrine is based upon Jesus' teachings to the Jews as it conformed to the Law. If the woman who divorces a man marries another person his only hope for ever having guiltless sex or a family is to get her to divorce him and take him back. A strange doctrine indeed! It is not believable.
So what was happening was these men were dealing "treacherously" with their wives by putting them away and not giving them the "bill of divorce" that Moses had commanded (Mark 10:3).
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Mark 10:3-9 ASV
Ethan, remember to apply rules for Bible study. Consider the circumstances and "handle aright" the word. Those that were questioning Jesus were concerned with the Law and with pitting Jesus against it. It is evident that Deut. 24:1-3 was the applicable text. The fact that they were (if wanting to get rid of a wife) commanded to: 1) write a bill of divorcement; 2) put it into her hand; and 3) send her out of the house, indicates the context, which you, for whatever reason, are unable to see. They first asked, is it lawful to put away you wife for any cause? Jesus carefully avoided taking sides with either the School of Hillel or the school of Shammai. He addressed the apparent problem, which I documented in my first post as still existing to this day.
Jesus answers, in the Markan version, with the parallel of Matthew 19:4-6, and this actually completely destroys Mr. Waters' argument. Jesus, in Mark, does not make any distinctions between the "putting away" and the "bill of divorce," as Mr. Waters imagines,.."
More than once I have used the above argument to support my position and have seen where others have done the same. It proves that Jesus was simply primarily concerned with exposing the treacherous practice of "putting away" and was not concerned, at that point, with whether one divorced should be punished for doing it or letting it happen.
Man is not to give his wife a bill of divorcement, nor is he to put his wife away! Such is a direct repudiation of what Moses commanded, since the command was not based on truth but on hardness of heart.
First, Ethan ignores the fact that God both put away and divorced Israel, his wife.
The men were committing adultery against their spouses in what they were doing. The EXCEPTION to putting away and marrying another was IF the marriage was not legal/scriptural, which would be the case if the marriage was incestuous or illegal. Where such was the case, a "putting way" or permanent separation, would be appropriate and marrying another would not be sinful.
How Mr. Waters gets this from porneia, "sexually deviant behavior," I do not know.
Ethan, what I said was based upon what Halbrook had quoted. I quoted it in my article. Here it is again:
The only New Testament examples relating to MDR, where action is called for, are consistent with the point above. John the Baptist said Herod's marriage to Herodias was "unlawful" (Mat. 14:4). The reason was because of the Mosaic Law that forbad a man to marry his brother's wife while he yet lived (Le 20:21). Certainly John did not, on that occasion, or ever, seek to change the Law of Moses. Remember, it was Herodias that instigated the death of John rather than the Scribes and Pharisees who laid claims to protecting the Law.
And your evidence is an example from the old covenant regarding the old covenant and no hint of repudiation of the old covenant? Such will not be sufficient for understanding the good news of the Kingdom preached by Jesus.
First, Mat. 14:4 has often been used to try to show that it is unlawful for ANY divorced person to marry - that they would commit adultery.
Another example would be the man who "had his father's wife" (1Cor5:1). This could have been incest, but at best, it was his stepmother, which was not a lawful marriage (see Clark). Here is another example where Jesus' words, as I have explained them, would be applicable: Recently, in a certain state a court authorized homosexual marriages. Then, a higher court overruled that court, making the "marriages" illegal. Those "married" (should they desire to follow God's word) would not need to "divorce" - they would just need to "put away" or separate, i.e. stop the fornication.
This does not explain Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, where he tells the woman who has separated from her husband to remain "unmarried" (agamos), and that the husband is not to divorce his wife.
I made no effort to explain the passage Ethan notes. However, 1Cor7:10-11 does not support the position He holds. Because of the length of this response I shall only post a link presenting my thoughts on the above mentioned text: http://www.totalhealth.bz/spiritualneeds/Celibacy.html
The above harmonizes with Jesus' teachings IF Jesus was talking about divorce rather than the treacherous practice of "putting away," which is something that obviously can be done without divorcing. A "divorce" requires a "bill of divorcement." However, Halbrook's assertion does not harmonize with Paul's teachings. Paul stated that "forbidding to marry" (which applies to us if we tell "unmarried" persons they cannot marry) was "doctrines of devils" (1Tim4:1-3). He said to let everyone have a spouse (1Cor. 7:2). He said to let the "unmarried" marry and that such is better for them than to "burn" (1Cor7:8,9). He said the "loosed" (divorced) do not sin if they marry (1Cor7:27,28).
Good circular reasoning. We have demonstrated powerfully that Jesus does not just expound on the old but provides the good news of the Kingdom in His message, and therefore, 1 Corinthians 7 can be understood harmoniously with Matthew 5:32, 19:9. Everyone is to have a spouse, if they so desire; Paul does not advocate the possession of multiple spouses, and he makes it plainly clear in vv. 10-11 that separated/divorced persons can either remain unmarried or reconcile.
"WE?" Who helped Ethan with that "powerful" demonstration? :-)
Thus, the only explanation that makes any sense at all, allows God to be seen as fair and just (in MDR cases where the "divorced" were innocent of sin), and allows Jesus to be seen as having obeyed and respected the Law of Moses, is the idea that APOLUO does not mean "divorce," which would make clear that Jesus was not dealing with divorce, but only the treacherous practice of "putting away." Some have charged that I have made up the idea that APOLUO does not refer to divorce in Jesus' teachings. The fact is there are many who have learned this truth and I am astonished at how few are willing to debate this issue.
Note that Ethan made no effort to explain how we can rightly contribute a doctrine to God (punishing one divorced that was innocent of marital sin) that is against His law and His nature. It cannot be explained because it is wrong. Pr 17:26 - "Also to punish the just [is] not good, [nor] to strike princes for equity."
Mr. Waters, apparently, does not want to answer the arguments made on the basis of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 that show the weak underbelly of his position.
I really have no idea what Ethan is talking about, above. Ethan, if you have something to post on Deut. 24:1-3 then please do it. I will be happy to see what you have and discuss it. I think that if you had something significant that would help your doctrine you would have shared it already.
Jesus, in preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, repudiates the Mosaic teaching on MDR, since it is not based in truth but on the hardness of the heart of the Israelites.
I've already addressed the statement above and shown it to be not only unscriptural but as siding with the Jews and being against Jesus in charging that Jesus was a transgressor of the Law.
My arguments are based upon sound hermeneutics resulting in conclusions that are just, reasonable, believable and scripturally sound - none of which can be said about Ethan's position.
Return to Total Health