Denham's Third Negative
1. Robert accuses me of misrepresenting him. Rather he has misrepresented himself. He said in defining his proposition “legal” divorce severs a marriage. In Samoa a “legal” divorce is simply sending one’s wife away. The same was true in ancient Judaism, Greece, and Rome. The writ of divorce in Israel initiated the process, but sending away was the means of divorce. Robert admitted implicitly a man writing his own writ of divorce, giving it to his wife, and sending her away would not constitute “legal” divorce today. He admits court action could even be involved, but there is no mention of any courts in Deut. 24 or Mark 10, which he cited as proof of his position. Hence no divine authorization per his view,! He thus implicitly forfeits his position. No NT text binds Deut. 24 on Gentile nations!
2. Robert’s proposition is indeed controverted in that no society has observed the Deut. 24 pattern for centuries. His affirmation is that legal divorce frees both parties to remarry today. If the pattern, which he asserts must be followed, is not followed today then, the legal divorce practices of today do not free both parties to remarry. He is also wrong in his assumption that Deut. 24 is a pattern for divorce for anyone beyond ancient Israel.
The process in Deut. 24:1-2 entailed the one ground of er’vat dabar, , the husband writing the bill of divorce, giving it into his wife’s hand, and sending her away. She could not even initiate the process. The process in U.S. Law, however, has no fault divorce in all 50 states, civil judges adjudicating the case and writing a divorce decree binding on both parties, lengthy hearings, multiple court documents with special service, no writing of writ by husband; the wife often keeping the home instead of being sent out, and even able to initiate the process, etc.
So, the two processes are obviously not anywhere near the same!
Also, if it is the case that Jesus taught the same thing Moses taught on divorce, and Jesus taught fornication is the only ground sanctioned by God, then Moses taught by his use of er’vat dabar, that fornication is the only ground Divinely authorized. Robert admitted the truth of that Moses taught the same thing as Jesus. I have established the fact that fornication was taught by Jesus as the only ground. Thus, the conclusion follows, and Robert’s proposition falls!
3. Robert’s doctrine implicitly encourages people to try to dissolve at will unions God sanctioned, if there is “written proof.” This in essence is the basic position of the Pharisees (Matt. 19:3,7).
4. While the “primary meaning” of shalach, and apoluo,, according to Robert, is “send away,” such is not their exclusive, meaning. Robert has admitted there are other meanings by his use of “primary.” One meaning is divorce, as the historians, linguists, and legal scholars show! Notice:
Scholars on shalach:
Young – shalach, “is a technical term for divorce” (Isaiah,, III:296); Zakovitch – shalach, is a key divorce term “in the divorce terminology in the Old Testament” (Jewish Law Annual,, 1981, IV:31); Brin translates Malachi 2:16 “I hate divorce” and says it refers to divorce in Isaiah 50:1 (Legal Texts,, 233); Raywer – “…in the Bible the verb for ‘to divorce’ was shile-ah [shalach] , ‘to send away’ or ‘dismiss’…” (Gender Issues in Jewish Law,, 36); translates Malachi 2:16 as “God hates divorce”; Jackson – “…divorce was originally effected by sending away (and what more natural method can there be?) and that language retained this notion after the method itself changed” (Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History,, 235); Collins – shalach, is part of “the Biblical dictionary of divorce terms” (Divorce in the NT, 191).
Scholars on apoluo and choridzomai:
Gehring says “the legal act of divorce indicated by the Greek verb apoluo, as a term of acquittal” (Biblical “One-Flesh” Theology,, 287). Also, er’vat dabar, was a synonym for the porneia, of Matt. 5:32; 19:9 (60); Robertson of choridzomai, in 1 Cor. 7 states: “Here used of divorce by the wife, which, though unusual then, yet did happen as in the case of Salome…and of Herodias…Jesus also spoke of it (Mark 10:12)” (Word Pictures, IV:126); Moulton & Milligan concerning choridzomai, state: “The word has become a technical term in connection with divorce as in 1 Cor. 7:10,11,15” (Vocabulary of Greek Testament, 695-696); Garland, “In the context of Greco-Roman practice, the verb [choridzomai,] means to divorce and is synonymous with the verb aphienai , in 7:11b…” (1 Cor. , 281). Lockwood (1 Cor. , 237); Naylor (1 Cor. , 168-170); Renn (Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, 876). [Renn gives “divorce” as definition for apoluo, in the NT (770).]
Robert accused me of implying sending away constitutes divorce today under U.S. law, which I have not. But it was the form of divorce in ancient times, and, though it does not follow that I must therefore believe it is the form today, it still is the form in some, legal systems.
5. Robert said “the order of the command” is to write the bill of divorce, give it to the woman, and then send her away. But God sent Israel away and then wrote the bill of divorce (Jer. 3:8). Under U.S. law the divorce decree comes after, the two parties have already been separated. The pattern does not hold.
6. The situation of the agunah woman also is not the big deal Robert makes of it. If Israel had abided by the one ground, there would be no such state. Jesus pointed out that the man who unscripturally divorces his wife is complicit in her adultery, if she remarries (Matt. 5:32). So, how does my position imply that God is winking at sin as Robert charges? It is a red herring.
7. One will note Robert cites some scholars (without documentation) supposedly supporting his view, while charging me that I must believe that scholars are inspired because I cite them (with documentation no less). Who is more qualified to deal with the original languages, one with a lot of training or one with little or no training in them?
8. I asked if the NT church was divorced in Jeremiah 3. He wrote:
“When Paul said, “that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead,” he was speaking to God’s people, Israel— “Them that know the Law” (Rom 7:1). God’s people were divorced according to the Law, and Paul tells us another person in the Godhead (Jesus) married God’s people—those who would repent and obey.”
But Robert’s doctrine implies that for the NT church (spiritual Israel) to be the one who remarries in Rom. 7, it must be the same entity that was divorced in Jer. 3. However, the NT church was established several hundred years after Jeremiah!
9. Robert implied in answering my 3rd question the NT church and the church in the wilderness described in Acts 7:37-39 were one in the same,. The NT church did not even exist in Moses’ day! Is he not aware, “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6)? Robert’s doctrine implies the physical nation of Israel is actually the Bride of Christ.
Return to Debate Page: http://www.totalhealth.bz/marriage-divorce-remarriage-debates.htm