In his second negative, Howard wrote:
Robert disavows any obligation to prove all divorces end a marriage. But his proposition claims: “all divorced persons may marry today with God’s approval.” He defined the term “divorce(d)” as, “The legal ending of a marriage.” His definition obligates him!
Clearly, my opponent has misrepresented me and my position by asserting I am obligated to affirm that ANY legal divorce ends a marriage. He used up much space on this instead of dealing with what I have actually affirmed. My proposition says, “The Scriptures teach.” Thus, this debate is about what the BIBLE says, or what is scriptural—not what MAN says divorce is, means and does or doesn’t do. Men’s rebellion against God (what he has said) is the problem, resulting in “divorce” not doing what God intended it to do. A divorce MUST have the basic characteristics of divorce as prescribed by God. Our dispute is simply about whether or not “all unmarried persons are authorized by God to marry.” This I have affirmed using Paul’s clear teachings (1Cor7:1-2,8-9,27-28; Rom7:1,4).
1. God’s definition of divorce, and His example for us, is clear (Deut24:1-2; Jer3:8), but Howard says,
“…No society (not even Judaism) has followed that explicit process for many centuries. That fact implies that no one today could divorce and marry another with God’s sanctioning the new marriage.”
Even if it were true that no one follows God’s design and command for divorce, it would not affect the truth of my proposition. While I accept what God says regarding the fact that divorce ends a marriage (Deut.24:1,2; Jer3:8), Howard has a problem with it. He tries to refute this observation by asserting that no society follows God’s teaching regarding the definition of divorce anymore. He insists that the “sending away” is the divorce but cannot deal with the fact that one can send away but not divorce, which does not end the marriage. If Moses does not give a clear definition of divorce, applicable for all time, it behooves Howard to cite a passage from the New Testament that does; but he cannot. Insisting that Jesus taught that a marriage continues to exist if one who puts away does not do it for a certain reason is not a definition at all. Also, Howard is still in a quandary because of having said no society follows the Jewish Law regarding divorce, especially in view of the fact his broad statement hammers his own teaching.
2. The primary meaning of both shâlach and apoluo, as used in Deut24:1 and Matt19:9, is to “send away.” One might say to his spouse, “GET OUT!” She leaves. Are they divorced, Howard?
3. Jesus taught the same thing as Moses, but Howard perverts both their teachings when he says “an unseemly thing” is the same thing as “fornication.” Howard’s assertion regarding Moses’ teaching is contrary to the writings of many great scholars. Barnes (Matt5:32) wrote,
“…The husband exercised this right at pleasure; that he was judge in the case, and dismissed his wife when and for what cause he chose.”
Gil wrote,
“This word "uncleanness" does not signify adultery, or any of the uncleannesses forbidden in Lev_18:6.”
Clark, wrote, “Some uncleanness, - Any cause of dislike.”
This does not mean God approved of the decision and justified the man in his actions. Nevertheless, the divorce set the woman free, which is a biblical and historical fact.
4. “Let him writeH3789 her a billH5612 of divorcement, H3748 and giveH5414 it in her hand, H3027 and sendH7971 her out of his house.”
The order of the command is: ,
First, “write the divorce statement” (or have it written); second, “give it in her hand” (see that she gets it); third, “send her out” (dismiss, repudiate). Friends, you can believe Howard, who says the “sending” is the divorce and fornication must first be proven; or you can believe what God says is divorce.
5. Strong’s Concordance, from E-Sword,, on the word “shâlach,” does not mention divorce. Admittedly, scholars generally include divorce in their definition, way down toward the bottom. But even Howard admitted no society has followed God’s marriage law for many centuries; thus, we should understand that these key words, though “used of divorce,” were, and are, simply used WRONGLY—contrary to God’s definition. In Jesus’ day if a man determined to be rid of a woman, but did nothing more than shâlach (Hebrew) or apoluo (Greek), he disobeyed God (Mal2:16; Mk10:3) and was guilty of “adultery against her,” (Mk10:11)—causing her and the man she married to commit adultery (Matt5:31-32). Forbidding marriage was prophesied to be practiced by the apostate church, which came to pass, and involves more than forbidding “priests” to marry. Many preachers today are in the same boat in preaching this doctrine that Paul calls “forbidding to marry,” which he put into the category of “doctrines of demons.”
6. The texts my opponent asserts teach that only the innocent, who divorced for fornication, may marry, are the only texts in the New Testament that teach against the sin of putting away but not divorcing, Howard has admitted that the sin exists but now has a real problem. He wrote, “God treated the matter as a non-issue addressing instead the heart of the matter.” But this does not answer the conundrum: “Does God wink at this sin?” We are discussing a terrible sin that still exists (which I contend Jesus justly and clearly condemned); yet Howard cannot provide a New Testament passage that denounces it because he uses the APPLICABLE texts to teach that those APOLUOed are actually divorced.
7. Since Howard thinks scholars’ writings disprove my position it is important that I deal with this matter. I asked,
“Do you think scholars are inspired and therefore not subject to errant conclusions and self-contradictions like others are?”
“No” would have been sufficient, but what he said seems to indicate he believes scholars ARE inspired—you judge. He wrote,
“You sought to use several reference sources from scholars in this debate. Your question implicitly impeaches your own reference sources.”
Really? How so?
We put a lot of stock in the best and most trusted literal versions--the ASV, YLT, and other good versions that never, translated either the word shâlach or apoluo as divorce. Should we trust these versions, or what Howard says all scholars believe?
Perhaps my opponent needs to hear Paul who says not to think “of men above that which is written,” (1Cor4:6). I realize scholars are mere men but I do not think that all are in agreement. They are not. Contrary to Howard’s assertions some scholars support my position on various points. Maybe the ones I quote don’t agree with my overall view, but they said what they said, and it is ludicrous to charge me with misusing the source on the grounds that they could not have believed, or meant, what I quoted because it would contradict something they said elsewhere. Inconsistency can be due to not understanding the subject well. Only truth is consistent. Since only Bible writers were inspired the main evidence Howard thinks defeats my affirmative is faulty, but my evidence is based on Scripture and is very strong.