Denham's Rejoinder
Robert’s proposition states expressly: “The Scriptures teach that all divorced persons may marry today with God’s approval.” Robert implicitly gave up that proposition when he sought to confine divorce the term “divorce” to legal divorces and to the pattern of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which he contends is binding today. That is not what his proposition explicitly calls for.
Furthermore, the 4 points that he claims establishes his case do not do so.
1. It is not the case that “divorce ends a marriage.” The Jewish males in Malachi 2 were still joined to the wives of their youth, despite their divorces (cf. vs. 14-16). I showed that even some of Robert’s sources translated shalach, as “divorce” in v. 16.
Robert never addressed the fact that God sent Israel away first and then gave her the bill of divorce (Jer. 3:8) – the exact opposite order that Robert claims must be observed. Also, he did not deal with the obvious differences between the pattern he claims as binding from Deut. 24 and modern divorce practice in U.S. law. Robert confuses the writ of divorce with the actual divorce action, which really was through the sending away of one’s spouse.
2. His second point is an assertion that he did not prove. In fact, Jesus affirmed that when a man divorced his wife on any ground other than fornication and married another that he committed adultery (Matt. 19:9), thus implying that the original marriage still existed under God’s law.
3. It is not the case that putting away in ancient Israel was distinct from divorce, as Robert’s third point implies. I presented numerous authorities in the fields of history, linguistics, lexicography, and Jewish law who stated unequivocally that putting away one’s wife was the basic form of divorce in ancient Israel. The ground of fornication was necessary for valid divorce, according to Moses and Jesus (Deut. 24:1, er’vat dabar; Matt 19:9).
4. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 directly contradicts Robert’s assertion that divorce always ends a marriage. The verb choridzomai, it was shown, refers to divorce, especially the Roman practice of divorce by separation. It also contradicts his assertion that Paul authorized every divorced person to remarry. Paul specifically commanded the woman to “remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.”
Robert’s use of Wallace’s quote is fascinating, as Wallace’s quote pertained contextually to the question of whether a preacher should refuse to baptize a couple in a questionable marriage. Wallace affirmed in life that he would teach the newly baptized couple that, if they were unscripturally divorced on grounds other than fornication, then they were living in adultery. What would that therefore imply about their real condition, if they refused to separate?
It is also significant that in the same work that Waters cites, Wallace stated that the marriage bond was “indissoluble” (p.42) – a statement contradicting Robert’s first point above. Wallace also noted that 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 concerned divorce, not modern separation (p.43). Thus, Wallace implicitly repudiates the position of Robert Waters.