J.T. talked about a prisoner in a courtroom being "loosed and bound at the same time." This was supposed to illustrate how a man can be "loosed" (divorced) from a woman but still bound (by God) to her so that he may not marry another. But the man in the illustration was never loosed and bound by the same thing. One was a mechanical instrument, the other was law. A man and woman are bound by
Once again, J.T. quotes 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3 as if they support his teaching. The "loosed but still bound" theory was invented in 1984 and reaches no higher in scholarship than J.T. Smith.
J.T. says I took "back-waters" on the term "unmarried" when he pointed out that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, spoke of the woman who departed as being "unmarried." But when trying to explain his flip-flop on the word "apoluo" he said, "...As with all words sometimes the context changes the meaning.” Yet he won’t accept the same principle when it is not to his advantage.
J.T. used 200 words to build a prejudicial argument in which he talked about how many times one could be divorced and remarried. First, we must not overlook the matter of the "present distress" and Paul's advice under those circumstances. Second, I've already answered this once by noting Ephesians 5:21, 25. Yet, whether it is J.T.'s position, mine, or someone else's that the parties believe, divorce happens and the results often are not fair.
Questions:
1. How many times will God forgive any sin of which one is penitent?
2. Whose teaching on
3. Why do you have no problem with the innocent’s being punished with celibacy?
4. How many good marriages do you suppose have been destroyed because of your doctrine that encourages one to get to the courthouse first, rather than work things out?
5. Was
J.T. notes the text that speaks of Herodias as being Philip's wife, and would have the reader join with him in ASSUMING this proves they were still bound--meaning SHE could not marry. There are numerous problems with this. First, previously I asked: "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?" Will J.T. answer? Second, in view of 2 Samuel 12:9b, it is obvious that the language used does not help J.T. "...Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife..." Obviously she was no longer his wife because Uriah was dead. Third, the problem was not between Herodias and John but rather between Herod and John because Herod had married his brother's ex-wife, which was contrary to the Law (Lev. 20:21).
Evidently my opponent has no confidence that he can show that Paul taught that the divorced may not marry. He not only resorts back to what he has asserted that Jesus taught (that was previously debated) but has now changed his view on the meaning of "apoluo," and for the first time makes an argument with it. Jesus used "apoluo" in the "general" sense. If he meant "divorce" he contradicted the Law, which J.T. should, after our first debate, understand is a problem for his doctrine.
J.T. now argues that in Matthew 19:9 Jesus is saying that whosoever puts away his wife for fornication and marries another does not commit adultery, and it is true. But then he says, "Obviously, in this context the word ’apoluo‘ includes divorce or else he could not marry another without committing adultery."
No, as I have explained in a previous debate, the one “put away” is not sent away because of unfaithfulness. That was not what Jesus said. The sending away was because of fornication, i.e. incest or other illegal marriages, such as Herod's and Herodias'.
J.T. said, "If you do not put your wife away for fornication, remain unmarried or be reconciled to your husband/wife" and then asked what Jesus' conclusion would have been.
J.T., neither Paul nor Jesus taught what you are teaching. Jesus sought to HELP the “put away” women, as you have previously stated, because their husbands were not freeing them (with divorce papers) so they could “go be another man’s wife.” Jesus was merely giving the exception for when putting away (not divorce) wouldn't result in adultery "against the wife" or adultery if the wife married another. The putting away needed to be done because it was an illegal marriage resulting in fornication. J.T. is talking about legally divorcing one who has committed adultery. Jesus did not go there, and certainly he did not teach the divorced may not marry. Such would have him teaching against Moses, it would have him taking sides with the two Jewish factions, it would give his enemies a reason to kill him, it would have created a law that would punish the innocent and it would encourage divorce.
J.T. labored diligently to show that Paul taught what he insists Jesus taught. But Paul was not even referring to Jesus' teaching on the matter of putting away. He was speaking of “inspiration” as opposed to his opinion or judgment. (Barnes: “Paul here professes to utter the language of inspiration, and demands obedience.”) J.T.’s proof text speaks of the wife’s merely departing (leaving), rather than divorcing. Paul uses the phrase "for fornication" in the chapter only to indicate the reason why we must let people who have no spouse marry (1 Cor. 7:1, 2). Thus, from the context it is evident that in verse 11 “agamos” does not indicate the couple were divorced.
J.T. asks, "Was the Lord violating I Timothy 4:2?"
Both the teachings of Jesus and Paul were for the benefit of people who needed marriage to AVOID fornication. J.T., YOUR teaching not only forbids marriage but also actually encourages divorce and forces even the innocent to remain celibate, which is the very type of thing both Jesus and Paul sought to avoid.
J.T. ends by saying, "So you see, Robert, Jesus was not contradicting what Paul taught in I Corinthians 7."
I never charged that Jesus contradicted Paul. YOUR position (that is contrary to truth) has Jesus contracting Paul, which is why your proposition is impossible to affirm and why your teaching on