Waters’ Second Affirmative:
Howard asserts that I must prove that all divorces end a marriage, but I affirm that only divorce, as defined by God, does that. In my first paragraph I wrote:“God gave a directive telling men how to end a marriage (Deut24:1-4). God was not pleased with a mere “departing” or separation. He required that the man give the woman WRITTEN proof that she was free from him.”
Biblical divorce, when it is done God’s way, ends a marriage. Failure to do so was the reason the Jewish Husband was accused of treachery (Mal2). I asked Howard,
“Please provide biblical evidence that, under the Law of Moses, a woman given a certificate of divorce was not free to marry?”
Howard cited Mal2:12-17. But the passage does not answer the question because she was not divorced and she did not marry another. The text says the couple was still married. This is the very reason Jesus said a woman sent away would commit adultery.
Howard endeavored to prove a divorce does not end a marriage with the example of Herod and Herodias. The circumstance was that the marriage was “not lawful” based on the fact that he had married his brother’s wife while he was still living (Lev20: 21; Deut25:7). I do not contend that the laws of “all civil courts” regarding divorce are in accordance with God’s laws. Herod’s marriage was not in accordance with the Law of God. Howard agrees with me on this point. He said, “Those ‘loosed’ in vs. 27-28 therefore refer to those loosed with God’s approval...”. But what Howard denies here is where Paul says someone is loosed; IT IS WITH GOD’S APPROVAL. Thus, we should agree that those who do not do anything more than separate have not met God’s approval and are not “loosed” (divorced).
Man has devised all kinds of ways to end a marriage. In some cultures it’s, “I divorce you.” Others make it official by “jumping over a broom stick.” But God regulates divorce and only those either ignorant of God’s law, or rebellious toward it, do not follow it. Clearly there are three parts spelled out in the Law. Howard says the last part is the divorce. But the mere sending away, while failing to present the certificate, was the source of the problem resulting in the charge that the man committed “adultery against her” or dealt treacherously (Mal2; Mark 10:11; Mat19:9).
In answering a question that I sent Howard, he denied that Jewish men were putting away but not divorcing. Yet in his rebuttal he said “some were doing it.” Thus, he has confirmed what I have noted as being the very problem, which God condemns. In addition, Howard said there is no New Testament text that deals with this problem. So, we are supposed to believe that men “in some cases” did not divorce according to the Law, yet Moses, Jesus nor Paul dealt with the sin. I contend that Jesus DID deal with it. He called it “adultery against her.”
Howard said the “unseemly thing” is the same thing as “fornication.” Yet since he believes that adultery is THE thing that must happen before a divorce can be lawful he has a problem because adultery required the death penalty. Incidentally, fornication and adultery are very different.
I asked, “In the Old Testament, when a man divorced a woman, was he questioned by anyone regarding whether the ‘reason’ was for fornication?
No scripture given.
The phrase “born of water,” if left out of the Bible, would not leave anyone in the dark regarding the necessity of baptism. But the phrase “except it be for fornication”, which Howard teaches is required before a divorce meets God’s approval, would indeed leave the reader of Mark, Luke, and John in the dark if Howard’s position were true.
Paul makes it clear that the husband is to love his wife and that the wife is to honor her husband (Col3:18-19). Destroying a covenant by divorce to marry another is sinful. But Jesus dealt with a worse sin—sending away but not divorcing, which would cause the woman to sin.
Regarding 1Cor7:11, Howard wrote:
“She did not have the freedom to remarry. She still had a husband with whom she was to reconcile.”
The above is true, which is one reason we must conclude that “remain unmarried” only means she must remain in that separated state, or “as she is” rather than marry another. [See: Waymouth, Montgomery, New Life Bible, Barnes, JFB, Bloomfield, Robertson's Word Pictures and Strong on the meaning of chorizo.] This text is not applicable to divorced couples.
Howard had little to say regarding Romans 7:4. He said “it is the church – not national Israel – who married Christ.” But we are not talking about “national Israel” here; we are talking about “spiritual Israel” the church—the people whom Paul said married Christ. It was another “person,” Jesus, who married the divorced wife of God.
Howard said my “proposition entails that all parties in a divorce are free to marry another person” implying Israel could marry Baal. But failure to depart from the false gods was the reason for God divorcing Israel.
Passages that support Paul’s teaching that Israel married Christ:
Acts13:23; Acts13:24; Acts28:20; Rom9:27; Rom10:1; Rom10:21; Rom11:26; “all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer.” Compare this to “the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved”. Israel is the church. Gal6:16; Heb8:8-10; Rev21:12 “twelve tribes of the children of Israel:”
Jesus promised not to make changes to the Law before the cross (Matt5:17-18). To get around this, Howard asserted that Moses taught that a divorce had to be because of fornication, but he failed to prove it and he will not. He asserted that shâlach (send out) means divorce. But Strong nowhere mentions divorce in his definition. Howard insists that the putting away Jesus talked about is THE divorce. But how can that be true in view of the definition of apostasion, which both Strong and Thayer define as divorce. Obviously, Howard isn’t differentiating between separation and divorce. His idea of divorce lacks a key ingredient. Separations among couples are common. They usually either get back together (reconcile) or get a divorce.
In a world where the men were allowed more than one wife, and divorce is all that ends the marriage, it is obvious that it is evil to send the woman out (shâlach, apoluo) but not give her the divorce (get) so she “may go be another man’s wife.” Howard could not show where this sin was dealt with in the Bible.
“Is it just punishment to require celibacy of a woman who did no sin but was divorced against her will?”
Howard sees the problem with his position, but instead of attributing the injustice to his doctrine and giving it up, in answering the question he wrote, “We are in no position to sit in judgment of God.” While this is true we CAN judge doctrines to be false that are hermeneutically unsound. The idea that divorce ends a marriage goes contrary to tradition, but is biblically/hermeneutically sound.