Brother Waters complains about the proposition. He wanted me to affirm a similar proposition to his that limited everything discussed to Paul’s teaching. Yet in his third affirmative he brought up "...Dissolution of the marriage contract." How does a marriage get dissolved? (Deut. 24:1-4). It seemed to me that whatever was right for him to use would be right for me. Did I miss something?
Robert criticizes my use of Bible language that one can be loosed (unmarried) and at the same time bound (by the law). He says it is an oxymoron, of which the definition is: “A figure of speech in which incongruous or contradictory terms appear side by side.” However, brother Waters has mislabeled the situation. We use such language all the time. Example: The officer and the prisoner come into the courtroom bound together with handcuffs. The officer looses the prisoner, and leaves the courtroom. However, the prisoner must remain, because he is bound by the law to remain until the Judge pronounced his sentence. So here is a man who was loosed and bound at the same time. What did Paul say in I Corinthians 7:39?
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
Also in Romans 7:2-3,
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Robert has, in three affirmatives, contended that the one who is said to be unmarried is divorced. Then, he took “back-waters” (no pun intended) when it was pointed out that Paul said that the woman of I Corinthians 7:10-11 was unmarried, thus divorced. Robert said no. She was just separated from her husband and Paul commanded her to remain unmarried or return to her husband. I asked the question of Robert, what if she does not return to her husband. What if he refuses to accept her back and she gets a divorce. According to Robert, a divorce looses and frees one to remarry. She is unmarried and it is pleasing to God for her to get married. She could defy the instructions that Paul gave to her (“remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband”) and divorce him. She now being unmarried could, with God’s approval marry another, divorce him and marry another on and on. In fact, rather than burn with desire Paul would urge her to get married to avoid fornication, according to Robert. I have challenged brother Waters a number of times in this debate to deny it. He CANNOT and hold the position he now holds.
Herod as an example of bound and loosed – divorced and married (Mark 6:17-18) is easy to be understood.
For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her. 18For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.
There are two words here that I want to emphasize.
First, John said that Herodias was Philip’s wife. Would it not stand to reason in view of what Paul said in I Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3 that referring to her as Philip’s wife meant that she was still bound to Philip?
Second she was married to Herod. So regardless of what the reason was that made it unlawful, she had divorced Philip and married Herod. But John said, she was still Philip’s wife. How could that be unless she was still bound by God’s law to Philip?
Now, let’s continue the affirmation. There are only two reasons in the New Testament that gives a person the right to marry another. One is “if one puts his spouse away for fornication (Matthew 19:9); the other is if one’s mate dies (I Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3), Brother Waters disagrees.
Also, I might add that in our last discussion I agreed that the word apoluo (apoluo) translated “put away” generally means, to dismiss from the house – to separate. However, as with all words sometimes the context changes the meaning. For example, in Matthew 19:9a Jesus said, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery...” In this passage by implication Jesus is saying that whosoever puts away his wife for fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. Obviously, in this context the word apoluo includes divorce or else he could not marry another without committing adultery.
What would have been the conclusion of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew, Mark and Luke? If you do not put your wife away for fornication, remain unmarried or be reconciled to your husband/wife. Otherwise you would be committing adultery. This is in complete harmony with what Paul wrote as it relates to what Jesus said. Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage which was set forth by Paul in I Corinthians 7:10-11 “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, ‘Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife’.” This was that which was spoken by the Lord, Paul said. If you do not put your wife away for fornication, remain unmarried or be reconciled to your husband/wife (Matthew, Mark and Luke). Otherwise you will be committing adultery. Was the Lord violating I Timothy 4:2?
So you see, Robert, Jesus was not contradicting what Paul taught in I Corinthians 7.