The Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced persons are “unbound” and may marry another. Affirm: Robert Waters. Deny: Jack Holt.
I appreciate Brother Waters for entering into this discussion of our differences on this important subject which God speaks to in His holy word. Gentile reader, our efforts are all for your benefit. Our desire is that you use the things we write to help you as you search the scriptures on this matter. May God bless us all as we enter this study, and may it ultimately result in His glory and honor.
Before I examine the specifics that Brother Waters has offered I wish to present two negative arguments.
My first negative argument centers on 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11. In that passage the apostle Paul wrote, “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 NASB). The text is too clear to be misunderstood by an unbiased reading. Regarding the subject we are discussing, it tells divorced people to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.” This being the case, Brother Waters is not justified when he goes to other portions of 1 Corinthians 7 and attempts to apply them to divorced people and teach that they are “unbound” and free to marry.
I will pause here and answer what is an obvious question. What happens if a divorced person ignores the teaching of these verses and marries another? The Bible speaks plainly on this subject. In Mark 10:11, 12, Jesus said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery,” (Mark 10:11-12 NASB). This text makes it very plain that those who disobey Paul’s instructions to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled” sin when they enter a marriage to another, and that the sin they commit is adultery in the second marriage. As long as that marriage is maintained and their former mate is living they commit adultery with their second spouse. It also explains why Paul says his teaching here is not his, but the Lord’s.
There is an exception to this general rule. In Matthew 19:9 Jesus said, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,” (Matthew 19:9 NASB). The force of the exception clause is that the person who divorces their mate for sexual immorality may marry another without committing adultery. The mate they put away, however, continues to be covered under Mark 10:11, 12, and would commit adultery if they should marry another as long as the first spouse lives.
In 1 Corinthians 7:12 Paul begins that verse by saying, “But to the rest I say…” Brother Waters would do well to heed that statement. Paul has already stated God’s will on marriage and divorce, and any interpretation of the passages that precede or follow which contradicts the teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, is an erroneous interpretation.
I beg for the patience of both Brother Waters and the readers as I present my second negative argument. I realize that it will not only cover what we are discussing in this debate, but that it will also cover matters that are beyond the proposition. I do not introduce these matters to cloud the issue, but I introduce them because I believe that if they are correctly understood then the issue we are discussing will be more easily solved.
I believe that in order to understand the issues before us, and some of the other issues before brethren today on this subject, that we must understand what a marriage is, what a divorce is, and what it means to be “bound” in the sight of God to another.
The Bible teaches that marriage is a covenant relationship (see Malachi 2:14). A covenant consist of three things—terms, promises to keep the terms, and ratification. The apostle Paul, in Galatians 3:15 says, “Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it,” (Galatians 3:15 NASB).
Throughout human history there have been many means devised by men to ratify a marriage covenant. In Old Testament times the common means was that a marriage feast was held. At the end of the feast the bride and groom went into a room and spent the night together while their family and friends waited outside. These processes ratified the marriage covenant, and from that point on the two were considered to be married (see for example the Genesis story of Jacob and Leah’s marriage).
In modern America ratification takes place after one has received a license from the state, and exercised that license in what we call a marriage ceremony. In Texas (the state I consider home) you must be 14 with parental consent, 18 without, and obtain a license which is only valid for 30 days. Once that license is exercised the two are considered to be married.
What a lot of people do not understand is that two are joined by more than their marriage covenant. Beyond the marriage covenant the Bible teaches that when two marry lawfully according to divine law they are “bound” by God. The word “bound” simply means “to be under obligation.” When two marry they are under many obligations from God. For example, the Bible commands the wife to submit to her husband, and it commands the husband to love his wife.
In Romans 7:2, 3, the Bible says, “For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man,” (Romans 7:2-3 NASB). This passage clearly teaches that when two marry they are bound (under obligation) to each other as long as they live. Hence, should they divorce and one go out and marry another, they commit adultery in that second marriage.
Another concept that many do not understand is the concept of divorce. Divorce is the undoing of the marriage covenant. Under the Old Law a divorce took place when a man wrote out a bill of divorcement and gave it to his wife and sent her out of the house. Under modern law, divorce is a legal process. When two go to the court house and get a divorce they move from a married state to an unmarried state—they are divorced. 1 Corinthians 7:11 makes this clear when it says to divorced people that they are to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.”
All of the talk we hear today from some that people are “divorced in the eyes of the law, but are still married in God’s eyes” is simply a bunch of hogwash. The concept that two can divorce and play some kind of waiting game and later “put away” the other is also a bunch of hogwash. When two people divorce, they are unmarried in God’s eyes, in the civil government’s eyes, and they ought to be unmarried in the eyes of brethren. The issue at that point is, why did they divorce? If they did not divorce because their mate was sexually immoral, then they are obligated to remain unmarried or be reconciled.
Having said that, we must recognize that simply because a marriage covenant has been dissolved by divorce this does not mean that all of the obligations the two have towards one another are dissolved. In other words, when two divorce the general rule is that they are still bound (i.e., obligated) to one another. Again, Romans 7:2, 3, makes this clear when it says that they are bound so long as they both live, and that if one so bound should go and marry another they commit adultery. 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, also makes this clear when it tells people who are unmarried by virtue of divorce that they must “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.”
We ought not to think it strange that two people can be divorced and yet be bound (i.e., obligated) to one another. Even the civil law recognizes such bonds, and when a man divorces his wife civil law will often obligate him to support her with alimony. The two are divorced, they are unmarried, but they still have obligations to one another.
Now, having established these facts the application to the proposition, I would think, is obvious. Brother Waters has signed a proposition that says that all divorced people are “unbound.” In view of Romans 7:2, 3, and 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, and Mark 10:11, 12, and Matthew 19:9 it should be obvious that Robert is simply wrong about this. Generally speaking divorced people are bound to one another so long as they both live. There is an exception in Matthew 19:9, but beyond that divorce people are bound (i.e., obligated) to remain unmarried, or else be reconcile. This being the case, Brother Water’s proposition is evidently in error.
I will now move to examine the specific matters Brother Waters has brought to our attention.
I will begin by making a general observation. Brother Waters has done what most false teachers do when they get into a discussion and when they are in the affirmative. Instead of presenting us with a solid affirmative statement of his own views Brother Waters has promptly proceeded to the negative and presented me with some 46 questions concerning my views. I will answer each of the questions, but I will also make a prediction. Every time I try and represent his view he is going to say I have misrepresented him. By not presenting us with a solid affirmative statement he has left that option open to himself. It is a common tool of false teachers, and the reader should simply prepare himself for it.
I will pass reviewing the general comments he made in his opening statement with one exception. While telling us how to study the Bible properly he states, “A correct understanding takes into account the language, the context of the statement and all of the related material in the rest of the Bible.” I am pleased to see he included this common rule of Bible study inasmuch as he initially tried to limit my ability to use any scripture except the scripture that was found in 1 Corinthians 7. It is hard to understand how any Bible student would think such a rule was reasonable. Nevertheless, he agreed to debate, and he agreed that all of the scriptures should be available to use, and for that we are thankful.
Now, to his questions…
1. Is it possible for a scholar to say something that is reasonable and true yet contradictory to other statements he has made?
Yes.
2. Is it better to learn the meaning of a passage from a study of the context or is it better to reject the context and accept the conclusion that is made by most scholars?
It is better to learn the meaning of a passage from a study of the context, including the statement itself, the immediate context (the material surrounding the statement) and the remote context (other passages in the Bible that speak to the same subject).
3. Is it evident from 1 Corinthians 7:1 that Paul had been asked various questions regarding the same issues that trouble us, which has resulted in the need for this debate?
Paul had been asked various questions, but I do not believe they pertained directly to the position Brother Waters is supposed to be affirming. I am not aware of anyone in New Testament times who takes the absurd position that he does on this issue—that all divorced people may marry another. Of course, the reader is only left to guess what that position is from the questions, but let me lay it out for you very clearly. Brother Waters believes that any individual with God’s approval may divorce his wife and marry another. If that is not the force of his proposition, then I am unable to understand a plain English statement.
4. Is it reasonable to conclude that we should consider the answers Paul gave to the Corinthians to be THE answers for us?
Provided we are asking the same questions that the Corinthians asked, yes.
5. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband (verse 2). Would you say that the Apostle Paul, in the above passage, teaches that persons who have no marriage should be allowed to marry?
I would say the Apostle Paul teaches that every man may have one wife, and every wife one husband. I do not see authority in this passage for any man or woman to “marry another.” In view of 1 Corinthians 10:11, 12, it would be improper to apply this passage to divorced people for there Paul commands them to remain unmarried or be reconciled.
6. If a man did not have his “own wife” (verse 2) would this mean he did not have A wife, thus being unmarried (not married), or would it just mean he did not have someone else’s wife? If the latter is the case wouldn’t Paul’s statement be superfluous?
I do not understand the question. I will attempt to answer what I think you are asking by saying that it is possible for a man not to have a wife (to be unmarried), but to still be bound to someone by virtue of having divorced them. The general rule in such cases is that he must remain unmarried or be reconciled. This being the case, Paul’s statement is not superfluous.
7. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. In the above passage does the apostle Paul place great importance upon sexual activity, which is confined to the husband/wife situation? Yes or no?
Yes, but the desire for sexual activity does not in and of itself authorize one, or as your proposition says, all to divorce and marry another.
8. Who is required to let persons (men and women) have their own spouse? a) Roman Catholic authorities; b) The parents; c) Preachers; d) Elders; e) All of the above.
I would answer “e,” but I would also say that our issue is not over whether or not one can have a spouse, but whether or not one can have another. There is a big difference between the two ideas.
9. Do divorced persons have a spouse (husband or wife)? Do divorced persons have a marriage? No assumptions please. What did Paul teach?
As I explained in my second negative argument, divorced persons are unmarried, but they are bound by God’s law and must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. Technically, they do not have a spouse, nor a marriage, but they are bound to remain unmarried or to be reconciled. The apostle Paul teaches this in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, and in Romans 7:2, 3.
11. What reason did Paul give for his requiring that EVERY man/woman be allowed to have his/her own spouse (verse 2)? Please note the passage below and pick which answer below you prefer. “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” a) He wanted the reader to believe that some should not be allowed to have a spouse if they were unsuccessful in making a previous marriage work. b) He knew there was a very great temptation for healthy men and women to commit sexual sins (fornication), thus he pointed to marriage as God’s means of avoiding such sins. c) Both the above. d) None of the above.
I would first point out that our debate is not over whether or not every person is entitled to a spouse. Our debate is whether they are entitled to another spouse—you are affirming that all may divorce and marry another. Consequently, the question is immaterial. Nevertheless, the answer is that every person is entitled to one spouse (not another spouse as your proposition affirms) because of the great temptation for healthy men and women to commit sexual sins (fornication), thus he pointed to marriage to one as God’s means of avoiding such sins.
12. Paul said, regarding the “unmarried,” “if they cannot contain let them marry.” Since there are some that “cannot contain,” who is guilty of throwing a stumbling block before his “unmarried” (divorced) brother if he tells him he has no right to a marriage and that requirement results in his NOT being able to resist fornication and dying in sin? You may pick from the choices given below: a) God. b) The devil. c) The preacher who convinces him he is still married and not eligible for marriage. d) Both b and c.
Your question ignores the fact that Paul speaks to people unmarried by virtue of divorce and commands them to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. That being the case you are trying to apply Paul’s statement to a class of people that the context clearly indicates the statement was not intended to be applied to.
Additionally, divorced people may marry if they cannot contain, they are simply limited to marrying their former spouse in such cases. They may not marry another because to do so is to commit the very thing Paul is trying to avoid in these instructions—sexual immorality (Mark 10:11, 12; Matthew 19:9).
13. Is there anything in my teaching that is not consistent with God’s statement: “It is not good that the man should be alone”? Yes or no? Can the same be said of your teachings? Yes or no?
In regard to your teaching the answer is “yes.” God teaches it is good for a divorced person to remain unmarried (i.e., alone) if they cannot reconcile with their mate (1 Corinthians 10:11, 12.
In regard to my teaching, the answer is “no.”
14. When you tell a brother or sister whose spouse has legally divorced him/her that he/she must remain celibate, insisting that it is for his or her own good, do you suppose he/she would think what you are teaching is consistent with what I have quoted (above) from God on the matter? Do you show them the above passage as well as other passages in Paul’s teachings?
I have never told anyone that they must remain celibate. I have always told people that they must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. I share all of God’s teaching on this subject with everyone who asks me.
15. What evil has resulted from the Catholic Church’s edict that forbids marriage for those who would be a priest or nun? Please pick one of the following: a) An increase in morality and surge in successful efforts in evangelism. b) The utter failure of the system, a decrease in morality and many souls lost due to unfair, unjust and unscriptural requirements. c) None of the above.
This question is immaterial to the debate. However, I would characterize this teaching as unscriptural, and as with all unscriptural teaching it has led to sin. Robert, have you considered the evil that will come from your view that all may divorce their spouse and marry another?
16. Since it has become apparent that evil results from celibacy (as seen among Catholics), is it reasonable to conclude that Paul teaches celibacy for a woman (outside distressful times) who has been divorced and whose husband refuses to reconcile or who has divorced her and married another? Yes or no?
More evil results when a divorced person marries another than when they obey God and remain unmarried or else be reconciled. Divorce is a dreadful sin in the sight of God, and marriages in which divorced people have married another encourage this evil.
17. In view of the meaning of the word “unmarried” (“Not married-not joined to another person by marriage, having no spouse”) is it reasonable to conclude that one who is legally/scripturally married is bound (legally and morally obligated) but that one who is “unmarried” is not bound? Yes or no?
No, that is not a reasonable, nor is it a scriptural conclusion. Please review my second affirmative argument on this subject.
18. In view of the meaning of our word divorce, and the Greek word lusis, is it reasonable to conclude that one “loosed” (lusis) from a spouse is may be still married (“in God’s eyes”) or bound (obligated in some way) to that spouse?
I do not understand your question. The phrase “is may be still married” is neither good grammar, nor logical. If, however, you asking can a person be divorced in civil law’s eyes, but married in God’s eyes, the answer is no. If you are asking can a person be divorced, and yet still be bound (i.e., obligated) to their former spouse, then the answer is yes. Please review my second negative argument on this subject.
19. Paul specified who could not marry. The female had to have reached the “flower of her age” (verse 36) and the male had to be a “man” (verse 36). Are these restrictions reasonable and acceptable? Are Paul’s teachings, above, in harmony with all other scriptures? Is the idea of requiring one who has divorced and has no spouse consistent with God’s justice? Consider Proverbs 17:26: “Also to punish the righteous is not good, [Nor] to smite the noble for [their] uprightness.”
You ask several questions here. Anything Paul teaches is reasonable and acceptable, and in harmony with all other scriptures, so that answers those questions. However, your conclusions about what Paul teaches are neither reasonable nor acceptable.
This question does not make any sense, either logically or grammatically—“Is the idea of requiring one who has divorced and has no spouse consistent with God’s justice?”
You seem to be arguing that God’s requirement that divorced individuals remain unmarried, or else be reconciled, is some form of punishment. You are simply mistaken about that. God’s laws exist to protect men and women, and to protect the institution of marriage.
20. Are there righteous people that have gotten divorced and are forced to celibacy because of your teachings? If so, are they being punished or does God just allow an evil spouse to get away with causing this evil? How can it be justified by saying it is a “consequence” of sin when the passage noted above condemns punishing the innocent? In view of the above, does it not seem reasonable that a divorce does indeed free the parties to marry another?
Again, you ask several questions using one number. There are people who through no fault of their own are forced to a divorce, and thus are forced to remain unmarried or else be reconciled. As I said before, I have never taught anyone that they must remain celibate. They may be reconciled if and when that opportunity presents itself.
People who are divorced through no fault of their own do suffer, but no, I do not believe that God is punishing them. Additionally, I don’t believe that any sinner, including the one who unjustly divorces his mate, will get away with anything. All men shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give an answer for what they have done.
No, these arguments do not reasonably lead to the conclusion that divorce parties are free to marry another, and they especially do not lead to your conclusion that all may divorce and marry another. Sometimes as Christians we will suffer because of the wrongs of others. Such suffering does not alter God’s will for us. We cannot, as you are arguing, sin to stop suffering. In other words, one who is unjustly divorced (and thus must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled) cannot alleviate that suffering by sinning through marrying another. He would simply be moving from one form of suffering, into another form of greater suffering inasmuch as he would sever his fellowship with God.
21. Why did Paul mention the “present distress” and could we reasonably conclude that someone was commanded to do something or not do something simply because of the situation at hand, and that the command was not intended to be true for all time?
This has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
Paul mentioned the present distress (probably persecution) and argued that if possible it might be best to avoid marriage until it was over. However, he clearly states that those who chose to marry (not marry another!) may do so.
22. In verse 27, is the word “bound” (deo) used in contrast to the word “loosed” (lusis)? [1Co 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.]
Yes.
23. Does what Strong and Thayer say about the word “lusis” indicate they thought it refers to divorce? Yes or no? [Thayer: “1b) of the bond of marriage, divorce”].
As Thayer demonstrates the word may be used of a divorce, but it depends upon the context in which it appears. It is exactly like our English word “loose.” It can be used in a context to refer to divorce, but it certainly doesn’t mean this in every context. I urge Brother Waters and the reader to review my second negative argument on the distinction between the concept of being bound and being married, and being loosed and being divorced.
24. If loosed does not mean or refer to legal divorce (which authorities define as the act of dissolving a marriage) what word (that Paul used) does mean divorce?
Paul uses the word aphie¯mi, meaning to “send away, or divorce” (1 Corinthians 7:12).
25. Does the word depart (chorizo) indicate a divorce has taken place or does it refer to a separation?
It depends upon the context in which it appears. All divorces are departures, but not all departures are divorces.
26. Did Robertson, in his word studies, say, in his comments regarding verse 11: “If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she gets separated”?
I could not find this quotation. What I said above applies here also—all divorces are separations, but not all separations are divorces.
I did find this quotation from Robertson on the word depart: “Third class condition, undetermined. If, in spite of Christ’s clear prohibition, she get separated (ingressive passive subjunctive), let her remain unmarried (meneto¯ agamos). Paul here makes no allowance for remarriage of the innocent party as Jesus does by implication.” Clearly Robertson views the “departure” as a divorce inasmuch as he acknowledges the departure leaves the two unmarried. This would not be the result of a mere separation.
27. Since scholars do not define the word “depart” as divorce is it reasonable to conclude that one who has departed has simply departed; which is nothing more than a separation?
Brother Waters is not being fair with words in this question. Sometimes we use the English word “depart” to refer to a divorce. Does the fact that most English dictionaries don’t include this example mean the word cannot have that meaning? Just so, the word “depart” in 1 Corinthians 7:11, 12, clearly refers to a divorce. The context is the deciding factor, not the dictionary in this case. Neither in pagan society then, nor in our society today was it common practice to merely separate and marry another. In both societies the common practice was to depart in the sense of a divorce before marrying another. Also, in neither society does mere separation leave two unmarried.
The answer to your question, Brother Waters, is no, it is not reasonable to conclude the word depart refers merely to a separation. Even if it did, all divorces are separations, and therefore you do not have a case.
28. If “depart” (chorizo) means or refers to divorce in verse 11 then why would it also not mean divorce in verse 15? Obviously, if it means divorce in verse 11 then in the case where an “unbeliever” departs (chorizo) the Christian is then divorced. Is this something you are willing to accept? [It should be apparent that there is nothing in the text that indicates they are divorced and thus no longer bound, but that since the Christian is “not under bondage in such cases” to pursue the spouse, he/she may get completely free by legal divorce if he/she so chooses.]
In both verses the word “depart” is broad enough to cover both a separation and/or a divorce and the teaching in both verses apply whether it is a mere separation or a divorce that is involved.
When Paul says the believer is not “under bondage” he is referring to the fact that the believer does no wrong in the separation/divorce since it is the unbelieving mate who insists upon this course of action. This is the limit and extent of his meaning. In such cases the believer (according to 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11) must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
29. Does the discussion pertaining to the “unmarried” end at verse 9? Yes or no?
No, there are various instructions pertaining to the “unmarried” after verse 9.
30. After addressing the “unmarried” Paul, in verse 10, addresses the “married.” Thus, how can you conclude that the “married” whom he addresses in verse 11 are NOT married but are actually divorced?
Your question does not make good sense! How can I conclude that the married in verse 11 are not married but are actually divorced??? This doesn’t even make good nonsense.
The text has a parenthetical statement referring to married people leaving the marriage, and verse 11 commands the married not to divorce. “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife,” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 NASB). Please re-ask the question using good logic and grammar.
31. If a person is said to be separated can you logically determine that he/she is legally divorced, which has since the day of Moses required a “bill of divorcement”?
Again, your question doesn’t make good sense, but if I understand what you are asking, yes, I see a difference between a mere separation and a divorce. However, in either case should one marry another they commit adultery in the second relationship (Mark 10:11, 12; Matthew 19:9).
32. Since Paul (in verses 10, 11) did not get into the matter of whether one was “innocent” or “guilty,” i.e., he did not deal with the “cause” of the separation, how can you assert that he taught celibacy for LIFE for a wife that had departed (which you, contrary to all evidence, insist means divorced), if her husband would not reconcile?
Again, I have never taught anyone that they must remain celibate. I have always taught divorced people that they must remain unmarried, or be reconciled.
You are asking “how” I hold a position, and that is not a reasonable question. Restate the question and ask me “why” I hold the position I do, and I will be able to answer it. Indeed, if you read and understood my two negative arguments you understand “why” I hold the position I do.
33. If the phrase “let her remain unmarried” (verse 11) proves the wife that departed is actually divorced, how do you harmonize verses 8 and 9 with your contention?
Very simply, Paul is speaking to two different classes of unmarried people. In verses 8 and 9 he is talking to those unmarried by virtue of never having been married, and in verse 11 he is talking to those who are unmarried by virtue of divorce.
34. Do you agree that Paul commands us to let the “unmarried” marry if they cannot contain. Yes or no please.
In contest he is speaking of the unmarried who are unmarried by virtue of never having married, and in that context yes, I believe that Paul teaches they may marry if they cannot contain. However, to apply that statement to verse 10 and 11 is to do violence to the context since Paul clearly commands the unmarried in those verses (i.e., the unmarried by virtue of divorce) not to marry another.
35. In view of the fact that the word “unmarried” in verses 8 and 9 cannot mean exactly the same as it means in verse 11, is it reasonable to accept the explanation of some scholars as to the words having a bit different meaning in verse 11? Yes or no?
First, gentle reader, I think it is important that you note that Brother Roberts is here admitting that the word “unmarried” in verses 8 and 9 does not carry the same meaning it carries in verse 11. You drive a peg there and watch him because before this debate is over he will deny that he takes that position.
If, as your question is worded, the word unmarried “cannot mean exactly the same” in these two verses, then yes, it is “reasonable” to expect scholars to hold that the word has different meanings in the two verses. I must say, your questions humor me when the first part of the question rules out any other conclusion than the one you ask for. In such cases it is not a question at all, but a statement. Nevertheless, you must develop your material as you see fit.
After asking this question Brother Waters includes several quotations from scholars in attempt to show that some of them agree with his position that verses 10 and 11are not talking about a divorce, but a separation. Even if the scholars agreed with him, a fact I am unwilling to concede at this point, all divorces involve separations and would therefore be included in the teaching of verses 10 and 11.
I believe each of the scholars he cites also mention that this person departs leaving them in an unmarried state. Since a mere separation does not do this, I have to believe Brother Waters is misrepresenting these scholars when he tries to interpret them as saying only a mere separation is involved in these passages.
It is time for a question of my own, and if Brother Waters will do as I am doing then he will cite this question and answer it in his next article. Brother Waters, does a mere separation leave two people unmarried? Gentle reader, you watch him and see if he answers this question, and you rest assured if he does not that he is not doing his duty.
36. Paul used the words “seek not a wife” when speaking to those “loosed.” Was this a command or was it advice, and why was it given?
It was advice, and it was given in the view of the then present distress.
It has no application to our proposition since we are considering people that are discussed in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11—people who have divorced their mates. Such people (as I demonstrate in my second negative argument) are still bound by God’s law to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
37. Did Paul state in verse 28 that those “loosed from a wife” would sin if they married? Yes or no?
Paul states in verse 28 that those loosed would not sin if they marry. However, the person of our proposition is not loosed—they are bound to remain unmarried or be reconciled to their former spouse.
38. In verse 11, was it Paul’s hope that separated persons (when one had departed) would reconcile or that they would get married to each other again? If you say they needed to get married what proof is there they were divorced?
The proof that they were divorced is that Paul called them “unmarried.” Please review the material I presented in my second negative argument on what constitutes a marriage and what constitutes a divorce (thus leaving one in an unmarried state).
39. Does a couple that has divorced need to marry again? Is it possible for people who are divorced to reconcile with each other but not marry again?
Yes, its possible. It’s possible for people to kill themselves, but it is not approved of by God.
Divorced individuals must marry each other again in order for their sexual conduct to not involve sexual immorality. While divorced they are unmarried.
40. If a couple divorces and ONE is free to marry, how can the OTHER NOT be free to marry?
Brother Waters, this is the easiest question you have asked. They are not free to marry another because Jesus and Paul said they are not free to marry another.
You know, when I had small children at home I had a white sign with big red letters on it behind my desk. When ever my children would question my will as to why I was requiring something of them I pointed to the sign. It said, “I’m the daddy, that’s why.” It is sad that we live in a time when people question the will of God and demand to understand why before obeying. In essence that is what Brother Waters is doing here. Unless he can understand why Jesus commands a thing he apparently doesn’t believe he has to do what the Savior commands. God hates divorce, but brother Waters is telling us that all people may divorce and marry another.
41. If a couple is merely “separated” what happens if one of the parties marries another?
They commit bigamy.
42. You maintain that in verse 11 Paul teaches that persons divorced are not eligible to marry another (except their spouse). Can you think of a way that one might possibly get around what you assert is God’s law? If there is a way to get around what you assert is God’s law why should the reader not conclude that what you say cannot be God’s law because one cannot get around or circumvent God’s true law? Hint: If Herodias had murdered her first husband do you think John would have needed to tell Herod “it is unlawful for thee to have her”?
Murdering a divorced spouse, does not constitute getting “around God’s law.” It leaves you just as unjust (i.e., sinful) as if you had simply divorced and married another. It would simply be an additional sin that you are guilty of. There is no way to get “around God’s law” without incurring guilt.
As regards Herod and Herodias, yes, I think John would have been obligated to tell him that, and to tell him he was a murderer as well. Any method one uses to dispose of a wife in order to marry another, whether it be murder or divorce, results in an adulterous marriage. We must not only obey the letter of the law, but it spirit (intention) as well.
43. The apostle Paul said to the “unmarried”: “But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.” If a divorced person is “unmarried” (which is obviously true) isn’t it true that a divorced person is being told he would not sin if he marries, just as a “virgin” would not sin if/when she marries? No, it is not true because such a conclusion would violate the immediate context (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11), and the remote context (Mark 10:11, 12; Matthew 19:9).
44. Do the translations below translate “unmarried” (agamos) in a way that allows Paul to be consistent? Waymouth--“Or if she has already left him, let her either remain as she is or be reconciled to him; and that a husband is not to send away his wife.” Montgomery--"(or if she has already left him let her either remain as she is, or be reconciled to him), and also that a husband is not to put away his wife.”
I’m not charging Paul with an inconsistency. Are you? If not, then your question is nonsense.
The fact is that the context must be allowed to have the final say as to the meaning of a word. Whether we use “depart,” “leave,” or “left” the context must determine what kind of leaving is involved. In as much as the leaving here involves leaving the two in an unmarried state it is a necessary implication that divorce is what is being referred to.
45. In view of the contextual as well as the scholarly support for the idea that agamos does not mean divorce, can we reasonably conclude that what Paul meant by “remain unmarried” (verse 11) was “remain as she is”–in the separated state; which is, for all practical purposes, without a marriage relationship (agamos) but short of being legally divorced?
I disagree with the premise of the question. In other words, I disagree that scholars as a general rule see this passage as you do (a mere separation) and in fact assert that the vast majority, if not the entirety of scholarship sees this passage as referring to a divorce. Since I disagree with the premise I obviously disagree with the conclusion.
The word translated “unmarried” here is agamos. It means “Thayer Definition: 1) unmarried, unwedded, single.” It logically demands the conclusion that in 1 Corinthians 7:11 a divorce is what is being discussed in the parenthetical statement.
46. Paul teaches that a wife is to be subject to her husband and that the husband is to love his wife (Eph. 5:24, 25). In 1 Cor. 7:11, Paul commands that the wife not depart from the husband and that the husband not put away (aphiemi) his wife. What is the meaning of APHIEMI in this passage and why should we, contrary to scholars’ comments and translations, argue that Paul had reference to divorce?
Again, I disagree with your premise that scholars believe that “aphiemi” refers to something other than a divorce in this context. The NASV translates the term “divorce” so there are literally hundreds of scholars who would disagree with your premise.
Brother Waters, gentle reader, I have answered every one of his questions—and this in spite of the fact that he was supposed to be in the affirmative and not questioning me and my position. I have presented my position in two negative arguments. The Bible does not authorize all divorced people to marry another.
I want you to wrap your minds around the word “all” in my opponent’s proposition. Here it is again…
The Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced persons are “unbound” and may marry another. Affirm: Robert Waters. Deny: Jack Holt.
If this proposition is true then a man can divorce 100 wives and marry 100 others in their place and not violate the will of God. This was exactly the position the Jews of Jesus’ day took, and they were wrong. In no dispensation has God allowed for divorce and marriage of another without sin being involved.
Brother Waters likes to cite the KJV of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as authority to divorce one’s wife and marry another. It says…
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4 KJV)
As much as I love the KJV and respect the influence it has had on the English speaking world it is simply wrong in this translation. New versions correct this, and instead of saying “she may go and be another man’s wife” they say “if she go and become another man’s wife.” There is a world of difference in saying she “may” do it, and saying “if” she does it. In either case, verse 4 emphasizes that the woman who is divorced and who becomes another man’s wife is “defiled.” That should be enough to tell us that God does not approve of divorce and marriage to another.
The NASV translates this passage…
“and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife,” (Deuteronomy 24:2 NASB).
The ESV translates this passage…
“and if she goes and becomes another man's wife,” (Deuteronomy 24:2 ESV).
The literal Hebrew says…
“and if she goes out from his house and goes and becomes another man's wife,” (Deuteronomy 24:2 LITV).
The Jews of Jesus’ day were wrong to believe that they could divorce and marry another, and Robert Waters is wrong today when he believes and teaches that all people may divorce and marry another with God’s approval.
I await brother Waters second affirmative.