The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced people are "unbound" and may marry another. Affirm: Robert Waters. Deny: Jack Holt.
Gentle readers, Brother Waters, I am thank you for your continued interest in this discussion, and for this opportunity to appear in the negative and to explain why I believe Brother Water's proposition is in error, and what I believe the Bible teaches on this subject.
In my first negative I presented two negative arguments. I want to begin my final paper by reviewing those arguments and Brother Water's latest replies to them.
"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," (1Corinthians 7:10-11 NASV).
I argued from this passage that God's will is for divorced people to remain unmarried, or else to be reconciled; and that brother Water's fundamental error in this debate is that he takes passages addressed to the never married and to widows and tries to apply them to divorced people. Paul writes.
"But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion," (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).
If this had been all that Paul wrote and if we did not have Jesus' teaching on the subject then Brother Waters might have an argument. However, after making this general statement Paul writes the versus we cited at the beginning instructing people who are married to remain married, and that should divorce take place for them to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. We must allow specific instructions to limit more general ones. In this case Paul made a general statement to the unmarried that they were free to marry, but then he talks to married people who enter an unmarried state and tells them to "remain unmarried, or else be reconciled." Since divorce is the only means whereby married people who are living can enter into an unmarried state the passage is clearly talking about a divorce.
Brother Waters has attempted to get around this plain and simple passage by saying the two are not really divorced or unmarried, but they are separated and living "as unmarried" people. Gentile reader, you can read for yourself. You know that is not right, and there is no translation that states the two are merely separated. The clear implication is that a divorce has taken place and left two formerly married people unmarried, and God has a message for people in that situation-"remain unmarried, or else be reconciled." That being the case, Brother Water's position that "all divorced persons are 'unbound' and may marry another" is false.
Robert once again refers to the commentators Bloomfield and Robertson, but I do not see that they add anything to the discussion. Instead of dealing with my arguments Robert has cited commentators who do not share his position on divorce and remarriage and attempted to negate what I have said by simply saying "they agree with me that 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 refers to a separation rather than a divorce." Let's say they do, so what? I could list commentators at a 10 to 1 ratio who agree with me a divorce is what is being discussed. If the readers wanted to read the commentators they could do so, but they chose to read this debate because they were hoping we would make arguments to prove our respective views. Robert simply didn't do that. He stated what his view was and trotted out a commentary and that was it. He would have been far better off to have made an argument like I did.
Several times while reviewing my material Robert compares me to Baptist who cite John 3:16 over and over again. I fail to see the parallel. In that case they cite passages which condition salvation on belief and insist we should ignore passages that condition it on baptism. I have not made that kind of argument in this debate.
Now normally, I just ignore this kind of thing in a debate as I don't see anything productive coming from it. But in this case Robert makes this argument and then makes the following statement: "The only difference is that Jack SAYS his argument is supported by the context and is harmonious with all other scriptures. Nevertheless, the fact remain that the passage Jack uses to support his doctrine is an obscure passage and he errantly attempts to twist very plain scripture to harmonize with his theory."
Gentle reader, the passage Robert is calling "obscure" is 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11. I want you to read it again and ask yourself-"Is this passage obscure?" I think you will agree with me that it is not. It is very simple. It says that married people should remain that way, and that if they should enter an unmarried state that they should remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. What is obscure about that? I suggest that one can see that passage as being obscure only if he holds a position contradicted by it.
Again, while reviewing this argument Robert focuses on the word "leave" in the NASV of 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, and argues that the word cannot refer to a divorce. Gentile reader, have you ever heard anyone say about a divorced couple that one of them left the other? I know I have. This is a fundamental problem Robert seems to have. He is unable to understand that words can have broad meanings and that we must allow the context in which they are used to define them.
This fault can be seen again when he points to the word "reconcile" and argues that it cannot mean that two remarry. Again, gentle reader, I believe all of us know that in the proper context it is fitting and all together common to speak of people who divorce and get back together as having been "reconciled." Why Robert is unable to see how words are normally used I cannot explain.
Gentle reader, you must be the final judge, but I believe the first negative argument stands unanswered, and unanswerable. God's desire is that married people remain married, and that if they should divorce He commands that they should remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
My second negative argument defined what a marriage is, what a divorce is and what it means to be bound. I demonstrated from the Bible that when two divorce they enter an unmarried state, yet they continue to be bound (i.e., under obligation to God and His law) to "remain unmarried, or else be reconciled." I also showed from Jesus' teaching, and from Paul's teaching in Romans 7:2, 3, that those who marry in spite of this bond commit adultery in the second marriage.
In Robert's second affirmative he simply responded by saying it is absurd to maintain that unmarried people can be bound. I pointed out that was not a proper answer in a debate, and that when he signed the proposition he obligated himself to present arguments not merely ridicule the other side's position. Robert responds again by saying, "I still maintain that it is absurd to contend that unmarried people can be bound..." Robert says he made arguments that countered my argument, but I still cannot find any. Yes, he said a lot of things, but he didn't make a single argument which sets aside Jesus' and Paul's clear teaching.
"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).
This passage teaches that married people are bound for life, that only death ends this bond, and that if they should divorce and marry another they commit adultery in the second relationship. I do not see any other logical conclusion than the one I have drawn.
In reviewing Romans 7:2, 3, Robert writes, "I showed the context of the passage noted above and noted various difficulties that Jack faces in using it to teach that marriage is not ended by divorce." Gentile reader, I never said marriage was not ended by divorce. I have clearly stated from the beginning that when two divorce they are unmarried. That is what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11. What I have argued is that although they are unmarried they are bound (under obligation) by God to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled; and that if they should marry another they commit adultery in the second relationship.
This statement by Robert shows that he has not grasped my argument, and that he is working from the assumption that I hold that divorced people are still really married. That simply is not the case and until Robert deals with the position that I actually hold he cannot possibly answer my position.
Robert continues his reply by quoting me and replying, and I believe his reply here really helps us to see the problem he is having and the problem with his position.
Jack Holt Wrote: Robert states that "one cannot be loosed and bound at the same time. This is an obvious contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, my opponent's entire proposition is based upon that ridiculous assumption." He is simply wrong about this. Certainly one cannot be loosed and bound in the same sense at the same time, but one can be loosed from a marriage by divorce, yet bound (obligated) by God to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. End Quote by Jack Holt.
Robert Responds: I really tried to understand Jack's reasoning, above, but it just does not make sense. Jack admits, "Certainly one cannot be loosed and bound in the same sense at the same time. " Well, that was my point. But he continues: "But one can be loosed from a marriage by divorce, yet bound (obligated) by God to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled."
Jack contradicts the admission he just made when he completes his sentence.
End Robert's Response.
This is very revealing. Robert is so convinced that I am saying that divorced people are still married that even when I explain it he simply cannot see it. What Robert must understand, and believe me he is not alone, what many brethren need to understand is that there is a difference between the idea of being married and the idea of being bound. The marriage is the covenant. Divorce ends the covenant and results in formerly married individuals entering an unmarried state. However, when people marry they are joined by more than the marriage covenant. They are also bound by divine obligations, and when divorce occurs they are not loosed from these obligations. Consequently Paul could write to divorced people, "remain unmarried, or be reconciled," and both Jesus and Paul could say to divorced persons that when you marry another you commit adultery. Here is the crux of the debate, and I don't mean to be unkind, but my opponent just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand my argument, much less is he capable of answering it.
Robert has not stressed this in the discussion, but in his closing he encourages the reader to "remember that 'loosed' is defined as divorced and that since the word 'bound' is used in contrast to 'loosed' there can be no credence given to the theory that one 'loosed' can be bound." Gentle reader, he is simply wrong in saying that loosed necessarily and always means divorced. The passage he is referring to is this one.
"Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife," (1 Corinthians 7:27).
Paul is using the term bound here exactly as I do. It is a broader term then the term "married," or the phrase "marriage covenant." People who are divorce are unmarried, but they are still bound to their mate by God's law that commands them to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. Hence the term bound here is broad enough to cover both married people, and people who are unmarried by virtue of divorce.
In contrast the term loosed refers to those who are not bound to a mate and thus cover people who have never been married, people whose mates have died, and people who have put away their mates because they were guilty of fornication.
Later on in his reply Robert made this statement.
Robert Waters Wrote: A covenant is a covenant and the fact that many brethren have imposed celibacy upon both the innocent and the guilty who are involved in the breaking of the marriage covenant should not be considered as evidence that a marriage covenant cannot be completely ended by divorce. There are consequences for breaking a covenant; nevertheless when it is broken, and no longer exists, it is absurd to argue that either or both parties are still bound by it in any way. I fail to see how breaking up legal/scriptural marriages and imposing celibacy is something that strengthens the marriage institution in any way. When a marriage is dead most are going to divorce and eventually marry another. Jack's false doctrine will cause many of these people to reject Christ. If they are already in the church many will either find another church or will be caused to give up completely. End Quote by Robert Waters.
There are several things here to observe. First of all, notice again that Robert simply doesn't understand the arguments I have made, and therefore certainly cannot answer them. Notice that he thinks I am arguing that the "marriage covenant cannot be completely ended by divorce." Either he didn't read my material carefully, or he is simply incapable of understanding it. Again, when two divorce the marriage covenant is completely ended. What I have been arguing is that two are bound by something more, and something other than the marriage covenant. This bond is God's will for married people. God's will for married people is that they stay married, but that if they do divorce (thus ending the marriage and the marriage covenant) they are obligated (i.e., bound) to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled; and due to this bond should they marry another they commit adultery in the second marriage. I say again, Robert cannot answer my argument if he doesn't understand it.
Robert says that if the marriage covenant is broken "it is absurd to argue that either or both parties are still bound by it in any way." Again, Robert demonstrates he has not understood my argument. When the marriage covenant is ended by a divorce the two cease to be bound by the marriage covenant--it is destroyed by the divorce. My argument has been that when two marry they are bound by something more than their marriage covenant. This bond is God's will for married people. God's will for married people is that they stay married, but that if they do divorce they are obligated to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to one another.
Robert then retreats to the emotional appeal in the quotation above by saying that he fails to see how celibacy protects the marriage institution. Again, I am not arguing for celibacy. I am arguing that divorced people should remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to one another. I'm sorry if Robert cannot see how strict divine law which discourages divorce and marriage to another protects the institution of marriage.
Robert then says, "When a marriage is dead most are going to divorce and eventually marry another." What Robert is arguing here is that we ought to do what most people do. Apparently he has forgotten Paul's instructions in Romans 12:1, 2, that we are not to be conformed to this world, but transformed by allowing God's will to rule in our hearts and in our lives.
Robert then says, ".Jack's false doctrine will cause many of these people to reject Christ. If they are already in the church many will either find another church or will be caused to give up completely.' Here Robert is appealing to what will get us the most members in our churches to determine what our view of divorce and remarriage ought to be. In fact, it is not my teaching that will cause people to reject Christ, but their own hardness of hearts in putting away their wives and marrying others.
What we are seeing here is a pattern. Robert is unable to see how the word "leave" might be used in a context to refer to a divorce. He is unable to see how the word bound refers to something other than being married. And he is unable to see how the word "reconcile" describes what two who have divorced do when they get back together and marry each other again.
He makes a similar mistake with the word "put away." I offered a great deal of material on that subject in my last article and quite frankly I see nothing new in Robert's material this time on it. To sum up, Jesus uses the phrase "put away" to refer to a divorce in Matthew 19:9 and its parallels, and teaches that divorce people (with one exception) who marry another commit adultery. Robert argues that "put away" refers to a mere separation and not a divorce. I presented ample material to answer that in my last negative, and don't believe he came close to answering that material. So I leave it and the issue in the reader's care.
Robert wrote in his last paper that, "In my previous installment I showed that is it not divorce that God said he hates but 'putting away.' I noted that God actually divorced and I made various points which I backed up with scripture." Remember, Robert's position is that "putting away" refers to a mere separation, so what he is saying here is that God hates separations but does not view divorce with that attitude. He ignores the fact that God put his people away for unfaithfulness (which is parallel to the exception Jesus cites in Matthew 19:9 and its parallels) and argues here that divorce generally is not as bad as separation. Believe it, IF YOU CAN.
In this last paper Robert quotes me and then replies.
Jack Holt Wrote: Yes, Robert, I know that God permits divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts. That simply means that God does not desire divorce, but He realizes that because of sin sometimes divorces will take place. End Jack Holt Quote.
Robert Waters Replied: Since you believe that "put away" means divorce how do you explain the fact that the actual divorce, consisting of three parts, was a command? Explain how this harmonizes with your assertion that divorce was what was permitted. End Robert Waters Reply.
I explained this in my last paper when I said, "What Robert misses here is that the bill of divorcement is not the entirety of the divorce, but is only one element of it. Robert asserted in his last affirmative, and I agree, that a divorce under the Old Law involved writing a bill of divorcement, putting it in her hand, and then sending her out of the house (or what is called in this text "put her away"). This entire process was the divorce, therefore when Jesus cites the last step (the putting away) He has in mind the entire process of divorce! Consequently, Robert's own text demonstrates Jesus is talking about a divorce in Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11, 12! Jesus is in fact making a synecdochical statement-citing a part (i.e., the putting away) when the whole is intended (the bill, the placing it in her hand, and the putting away)." Robert did not say a single word in response to this in his last article.
Once again Robert cites 1 Timothy 4:1-3 where the Bible classifies "forbidding to marry" as a doctrine of demons. I remind Robert again that I do not forbid to marry, I teach that Jesus and Paul forbade divorcing and MARRYING ANOTHER. There is a world of difference between forbidding to marry, and forbidding to marrying another.
Robert wrote, "The Jews did commonly divorce and those divorced, under the Law, who married were not charged with adultery. The marriages were accepted as legitimate scriptural marriages. My opponent seeks to convince you that Jesus did teach that those who divorced and married committed adultery, but his argument is based upon faulty translations, scholars who either lied or just did not know the truth, circular reasoning and numerous assumptions. It can be concluded with certainty that the Pharisees did not understand Jesus to have contradicted the teachings of Moses as found in Deut. 24. This fact utterly destroys Jack's proposition."
This quote demonstrates Robert does not understand the issue between Jesus and the Pharisees. They were arguing for "free" divorce and remarriage rights-Robert is correct on that! Where he errs is in not seeing that Jesus is contradicting that and is telling them that they where not applying Deuteronomy 24 correctly. They used it to justify divorce and remarriage, but Jesus corrected that interpretation and taught that divorce and marriage to another results in adultery.
Jesus' disciples understood clearly the contrast between the two positions and the restrictive nature of Jesus' teaching on this subject. They responded to it by saying, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry," (Matthew 19:10 NASB). They got the point, and being used to the permissive teaching of the Pharisees on this subject were shocked at Jesus' teaching. Robert would do well to see the seriousness of it as well.
Robert's paper before this one went on some 71 pages and he complains that mine did not follow suit and implies that somehow I have short changed the reader and ignored his arguments. Neither the validity, nor the truthfulness of one's argument is established by being verbose and presenting the readers with 71 pages of material. The fact is, I have made two negative arguments, and I have reviewed the arguments which I believe need to be reviewed, and I have ignored a great deal of material that I consider immaterial to the discussion. Robert should be happy to leave this matter to the reader to judge. If, as he charges, I have not answered his material, then it is being presented to the reader without refutation and he has nothing to complain about. But if, as I claim, it is not the bulk of the material that establishes truth, but the quality of it and its harmony with God's word, then he has nothing to complain about and I have answered his material thoroughly. I am satisfied to leave it to the reader to judge.
In his closing Robert presents the three passages he says proves his proposition. I want to briefly review them and my answers to his arguments on these passages as I close this final installment in the debate.
The first passage is 1 Corinthians. 7:2, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Robert's argument is that this passage teaches that sexual need authorize the divorce to marry another. Jesus demonstrates this is not so when he teaches that the sexual conduct within a marriage that results from a divorced person marrying another are adultery (Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Matthew 5:32).
The second passage is 1 Corinthians 7:8, 9, "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Robert's argument is that this general statement authorizes all unmarried individuals, including those unmarried by virtue of divorce, to marry. He is correct in this argument! ALL DIVORCED PEOPLE ARE AUTHORIZED TO MARRY-THEY ARE SIMPLY LIMITED TO MARRYING THEIR ORIGIONAL SPOUSE. Paul says that divorced people are to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled. Where Robert goes wrong here is that he teaches this passage authorizes divorce people to marry ANOTHER mate.
The third passage is 1Corinthians 7:27, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 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." I covered this passage thoroughly earlier and demonstrated that the term bound here is broader than the term married, and that in fact divorced people are still bound to their mate in the sense that they are obligated to remain unmarried or else be reconciled.
Robert presented three passages, and we have shown how his arguments on all three are in error. Consequently, his proposition, which says, "all divorce persons are 'unbound' and may marry another," is in error.
In closing I urge the readers to search the scriptures carefully and to measure all that has been said in the light of God's word. I urge you to reject the permissive views on divorce and remarriage that permeate our society and many churches, and to accept God's will in this matter. Whatever sacrifices that leads to will glorify God, and will protect the institution of marriage.
Finally I simply close with this plea-if you are married stay that way! If you do divorce, then remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.
God bless!
Jack Holt
aka Ahnog
http://www.ahnog.us
http://www.whiteparkchurchofchrist.org