Proposition: The teaching of the New Testament only permits the one who has divorced his spouse for fornication and one whose spouse has died, to remarry.
The above proposition cannot be affirmed unless it is assumed that Jesus taught the same (which has not been proven). J.T. knows this because he refused to affirm a proposition, like I affirmed, that limited the discussion to Paul's teachings. He knows Paul emphasizes the need for marriage to avoid fornication. But the very fact that J.T. inserted the words "for fornication" in his proposition tells us that he is not willing to allow Paul to settle the matter, as were Christians who asked him questions (1 Cor. 7:1, 2). He must rely on his interpretation of Jesus' teaching and labor diligently to make it appear that Paul's teaching harmonizes with his preconceived theory.
J.T. wrote "...Unless one divorces his/her mate for sexual immorality or one’s mate has died, he may not, with God’s approval, marry another." That is a very audacious assertion to make, especially in light of the fact that Paul’s teachings are obviously to the contrary and that if Jesus taught this he contradicted the Law. This doctrine of J.T.’s has numerous problems and unacceptable consequences. The only time Paul even mentions fornication in 1 Corinthians 7 is in the context of allowing those who need marriage to marry so they can avoid this sin. Yet J.T. insists that Paul teaches the opposite for those who happened to have been divorced, even if innocent (Prov. 17:26). J.T.’s main argument (from Paul’s teaching) is that one can be “loosed” but still bound, which is an obvious oxymoron. J.T. is not content with allowing God’s divorce law to do what he intended for it to do. The result is that he has the Bible contradicting itself on every hand: Moses teaching what God didn't want, Jesus contradicting Moses, Paul contradicting Jesus and Paul contradicting himself. Is that not CON VO LOOTED?
J.T. says that in the previous debate I did not prove that "unmarried" referred to the divorced. Nevertheless, he did not object to the definition of "unmarried" that supports my argument. Furthermore, if Paul meant for us to conclude that he didn't really mean to let
J.T. said, "...There was not a single person who was said to be unmarried that brother Waters proved was divorced." J.T., are you not supposed to be in the affirmative? Be that as it may, you insisted that verse 11 refers to a divorced couple, rather than merely separated, and that that they are “unmarried” regardless of the fact that the wife merely “departs.” (You just brushed aside the fact that Paul exhorts them to “reconcile” rather than get married.) Therefore, if you are right about verse 11 then your assertion, that the word “unmarried” does not include all the divorced, is wrong.
I Corinthians 7:27-28
J.T. admits that Paul is talking about divorce, but without any reasonable justification he asserts that “…Some were loosed from a husband or wife without being free to marry another.” He says that Paul told those “bound” not to seek to be “loosed,” but this is no argument. All Paul was saying is, “Due to the ‘present distress’ if you are married don’t seek a divorce, regardless of the circumstances.” Outside of the “present distress” situation, if one had reason to get loosed, how would he go about it? Divorce and murder would be the options. J.T. has himself in a dilemma here because he has Paul condemning divorce and remarriage regardless of the reason, which he does not believe Paul taught.
Verse 39
“…Married to a man but also bound by the law to him AS LONG AS HE SHALL LIVE.”
J.T. speaks of one “married…but also bound.” What a redundancy! What word carries a stronger meaning for being bound than “married”? It is like saying “Frank got HITCHED,” which simply means he got MARRIED, or he tied the knot, OR he is now bound. It is all the same thing. In view of the fact that J.T.’s proposition has “except for fornication” in it it is evident that he does not really believe what he needs this text to teach.
J.T. says Moses’ Law binds the wife to her husband. But this same law tells us the divorced woman may “go be another man’s wife,” which J.T. does not accept. Paul evidently was speaking of the marriage law that binds her to her husband, which may be dissolved by divorce (Deut. 24:1-4).
Barnes has some interesting comments pertaining to this “bound” but not married theory of J.T.’s (Romans 7:1-4).
“Is bound by the law …To her husband - She is united to him; and is under his authority as the head of the household. To him is particularly committed the headship of the family, and the wife is subject to his law, in the Lord, Eph_5:23, Eph_5:33. She is loosed ... - The husband has no more authority. The connection from which obligation resulted is dissolved.”
Barnes says (verse 4), “…Death dissolves a connection from which obligation resulted. This is the SINGLE point of the illustration…” [Emphasis added, r.w.] Indeed, but J.T. seeks to tweak the passage to support his proposition.
J.T. used a lot of space to show that death results in being unbound, but that is something nobody denies. He needs to prove his assertion that “some were loosed…without being free to marry another.” Another unproven assertion is that one can be “bound” (hitched) but not married (hitched). J.T.’s doctrine that forbids marriage for the divorced (1 Tim. 4:1-3) is a lead balloon until he proves his assertions. His convoluted theory has Joe bound to Sue while Sue is free to marry another. He would have us believe there is such a thing as being bound (married) with no benefits. But Paul tells us to let the unmarried marry with benefits. To get around Paul’s teachings J.T. invented a new and convoluted definition for “bound” and “loosed.”
Herod (Mark 6:17-18)
The marriage was unlawful, not because someone was still “bound” but because the Law did not allow a man to marry his brother’s wife (when divorced) as long as he was still alive. If Herodias was still bound to the brother why did John not say something to her about adultery and the need to either go back to him or remain celibate? Obviously, there is no biblical support for J.T.’s “bound but not loosed” theory, which he needs to be true in order to sustain his proposition.