In our first debate, I emphasized the importance of using good hermeneutics in studying divorce and remarriage. Unfortunately, J.T. has been inconsistent in doing this. The result is that he learned a false doctrine and continues to teach it. The most obvious evidence that the above is true is that J.T.'s position has Jesus contradicting Moses, which J. T. knows is not acceptable. Yet, to get around this powerful argument, that destroys his teaching, he unsuccessfully endeavored to show that Jesus' teaching did not apply to those to whom it was obviously directed, but did apply to his disciples. Unbelievably, even after I pointed out that Jesus’ disciples were Jews amenable to the Law, J. T. continued to make the argument.
One cannot successfully teach J.T.'s position on
J.T. said, "...Jesus directed them to how God set things up for the man and woman in the beginning." While this is true (and their hearts were hardened) it proves nothing. J.T. understands and admits the reason for the divorce law (Deut. 24:1-4) but contends that it was only a "contingency," merely temporary, and that Jesus changed it, making it not applicable. Yet J.T. was unable to answer my argument that the text gives the only scriptural definition of divorce that is practiced to this day, and he did not reply to the observation that men still have hard hearts, which means God's divorce law is still needed.
Before and during most of the debate, J.T. acknowledged the difference between "put away" and divorce. Yet near the end he recanted and began to use "put away" and "divorce" interchangeably. I refer the reader to my debates with Dr. Thomas Thrasher and Pat Donahue, or my book, "Put Away But Not Divorced," that deal extensively with this issue: www.TotalHealth.bz.
J.T. ignored the gist of Paul's teaching regarding the question of "who may marry," and misused Romans 7:3 and 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 to argue that being "married" and being "bound" are different, that one can still be bound even though he is "loosed" (divorced), and that Paul taught that unless one initiates divorce for fornication he must remain celibate.
J.T. asserted that two laws are involved in marriage: God's law and man's law. He contended that a man could be "loosed" by man's law yet "bound" by God's law. But "man's law," that allows divorce, IS "God's law." It came from God!
Herod and Herodias
J.T wrote,
According to the law of the land, she married Philip, divorced him and married Herod. In man’s sight, she was Herod’s wife. In God’s sight it was an unlawful arrangement. The text says, "for he (Herod) had married her." Yet John the Baptist said, "she is your brother Philip’s wife." Twist it any way you want to, it still comes out bound to Philip, married to Herod.
Obviously, J.T. is the one doing the twisting. Herodias was not still bound/married to Philip. I used 2 Samuel 12:9 to show that the language did not mean they were still married. J.T. replied,
Be careful, Robert, someone who is mentally deranged will read what you said and decide to kill someone in order to get their husband. Again, you are whittling on God’s end of the stick.
The only reason I brought these characters up was to prove that the Scriptures' speaking of Herod's brother's wife was no proof that in God's eyes they were still married after divorce. Surely J.T. understood the point. But, once again, not having an answer, he had to avoid the argument. However, unwittingly he brings up something that is a conundrum for his teaching. His doctrine--the idea that only death and divorce for fornication releases one to marry--can be taken advantage of by one who is willing to do evil (murder). Thus, there is a loophole in J.T.'s doctrine, which is evidence that God didn't author it.
The marriage of Herodias and Herod was unlawful (Leviticus 20:21), period, and not just "in God's sight." J.T. invented the "loosed but still bound" theory in his efforts to harmonize Paul's teachings with his false idea of what Jesus taught.
Now, if Herodias had been married to someone besides Herod's brother, the passage would not apply and the marriage would not have been unlawful. Remember, Jesus was amenable to the law he was teaching. That law allowed a divorced woman to "go be another man's wife." Yet J.T. uses this text (Mark 6:18) to support the idea that John is teaching new law (the same law J.T. says Jesus taught, which he says wasn't applicable UNTIL the new kingdom), i.e. that Herodias was still bound in the eyes of God to Herod's brother. Of course, J. T. insists that his doctrine does not have Jesus contradicting the Law, but it does. To get around this conundrum, in the first debate he argued that Matthew 19:9 didn't apply to those to whom it was spoken, but would apply only in the new kingdom. We are expected to believe that Jesus' teaching didn't apply to those to whom Jesus spoke BUT JOHN'S DID? J.T. has John teaching what he says Jesus could not and did not teach the people, because it was contradictory to the Law. Did John’s rebuke to Herod not apply to Herod, J.T.?
J.T.'s answers to my questions:
Question 1
J.T. said I did not answer his question regarding how many times one may be divorced and remarried. He also stated that if I answer in my final article he will not get to answer. But he has already answered. In fact, he answered for me when he said: "As many times as one is willing to repent..." Of course, he then brought up an irrelevant issue: an "adulterous relationship." But only if divorce does not do what God intended it to do (free the parties to marry another) is a subsequent marriage "adulterous." Now, we agree that God intends for people to keep their vows. But, for various reasons, marriages end in divorce. And sometimes it is best--God is a divorcee. But the theory that one must divorce his spouse for fornication to have the right to marry again is laden with problems. The only support for it is tradition that says Jesus taught it. It is rather obvious that PAUL didn't teach it. Nevertheless, J.T. labored very hard to make it so appear.
Question 2
J.T. knows his teaching punishes the innocent so he couldn’t forthrightly answer this question. He knows that it is not consistent with God's character to punish a person for the sin of another. He also knows that God has never given a law that requires the punishment of those who are innocent.
Question 3
J.T. admits he has a problem with the "innocent's being punished with celibacy," but refuses to accept and acknowledge that HIS doctrine punishes them. He tried to justify his actions by saying it is GOD'S BUSINESS and accuses me of trying to change the Bible. J.T. has made comments that make me wonder if it is even possible for him to question his doctrine as being anything but the standard.
J.T., you can't compare your practice of punishing innocent people, whose spouses divorce them, to things WE have no control over. We have control over what we determine to be truth. You made the decision to forbid marriage for some, but your conclusion and actions do not change the facts or truth. The problem this question presents for your doctrine will not go away.
Question 4
J.T., the very fact that you insist that only those who divorce their spouse for fornication may marry, is indication that getting to the court house first is a big issue. Your mention of how you encourage people to work out their problems and stay married was nothing but a dodge of my question. In cases wherein both spouses have committed fornication, the one who gets to the court house first and divorces "for fornication" is the only one that you say may marry. Even though you might do your best to help them work things out your teaching encourages divorce.
Question 5 “Was
J.T. answered, "No, they were not." He then explained that the reason they "might be married to another...was not because God had divorced them." Nevertheless, God DID divorce them and they WERE allowed to marry another. The section below deals with the text J.T. vainly sought to explain to his advantage:
Romans 7:1-4
Paul speaks to people who knew the Law—Jews who had become Christians. They would understand his teachings. Paul said, “The Law has dominion over a man as long as he liveth.” Did Paul mean the Law could not be changed or ended and a man was bound by it till death? No, for the Law had already been changed by Christ (Eph. 2:14-16; Heb. 8:6-13, 9:17). Since Paul was not making the point that men would be under the Law until death, on what basis can we conclude that a woman is "bound" to a man by the law of marriage even when that marriage no longer exists? Is it because Paul speaks of “death” as destroying the bondage? Does this point negate the fact that "divorce" destroys the bondage? J.T. labored diligently to prove that the believer is still under bondage after divorce, if it was not "for fornication." But I prefer to believe what the text says. At any rate, Paul used “death” to make his point and the fact that he did not mention “divorce” in no way lends support to the idea that only death ends a marriage. Who but Catholics believes that anyway?
Indeed, if a woman "leaves" her husband or he "puts her away," and then she marries another man, she will be an adulteress. Why? Because she is under the law of her husband—the marriage covenant. Since this text is not about divorce and remarriage Paul merely makes his point about the change of law by comparing death in marriage to becoming dead to the law, which freed those that were under it to be “married to another” (Rom. 7:4; Gal. 2:19).
God was married to
In the text under study, Paul’s intention was to get the Hebrews to come out from under the Law of Moses and to be married to Christ or come under the law of Christ. This is the same principle involved in Paul’s orders to let the “unmarried marry.” Those that could be married to Christ included the divorced who were unfaithful under the previous covenant.
In explaining what I believe to be the meaning of "put away" I said, "... 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.” In his reply, J.T. gave the definition again and asserted that "illegal marriage" is not part of the definition of porneia. He charged that I make up my own definitions. This is laughable because "incest" (in his definition) was/is an illegal union, whether the couple were married or not, and we have Bible examples in both cases.
I Corinthians 7:10-11
J.T. shamefully tried to make it appear that Paul taught what J.T. says Jesus taught. But Paul was merely saying that what he was teaching was by inspiration, rather than opinion, and Paul did not say anything about the need for a divorce to be for fornication before it was recognized. J.T. also continued to ignore that the woman had merely departed or left—she had not been divorced. And he admitted that words (like "unmarried") can have different meanings determined by the context.
J.T. wrote, "It appears that Robert is going to continue to teach his God-defying doctrine." The only thing my position defies is the tradition that J.T. has unsuccessfully sought to defend, which to him is the same thing as Scripture (the Standard), and any argument that contradicts it must be explained away or ignored.
If you have open-mindedly weighed the arguments in this debate then you are aware that J.T.'s "studied conclusion" has numerous problems that he was unable to solve. The following are some of the most devastating: 1) His position has Moses teaching what God didn't want, Jesus contradicting Moses, Paul contradicting Jesus and Paul contradicting himself; 2) In speaking of the unmarried (which includes the divorced), Paul said "let them marry"; 3) Paul classified J.T.'s doctrine that forbids marriage for some as "doctrines of devils"; and 4) J.T.’s doctrine, that punishes even those who are innocent, breaks up homes, destroys families, drives people away from Christ and his church and causes much discord and division--all while it is asserted that Jesus is the author of this confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Is there any wonder God classified J.T.'s doctrine as he did (1 Tim. 4:1-3)? In view of the problems that I have noted how can J.T.’s doctrine possibly be true?