Brother Thrasher criticizes my suggestion for arriving at truth on MDR. Being a school teacher, with a doctor's degree, he should have understood this one. My friend knows that multiple choice tests are easier to pass if you use the process of elimination. For example, if you are given four choices and you do not know the answer, yet you do know for certain that three of the choices CANNOT be the answer, you then know the answer. As Tom pointed out, various views abound on the subject of MDR, but we can narrow the field down to two categories or choices: 1) Jesus taught that divorced people commit adultery when they marry; and 2) Jesus taught that one "put away" (not fully divorced) commits adultery in marrying another. I showed that the first choice could not be true because it would require Jesus to break His promise (Matt5:17-32) and contradict the Law by telling men they were committing adultery by marrying after a divorce, and that the person divorced would do the same. This, obviously, is contrary to the Law (Deut24:1,2) . Thus, we simply must reject number one. This leaves number two as the ONLY logical answer, which, by the way, is supported by clear statements, which we can accept if we understand what Jesus did and did not say.
My friend has tried to get around this argument but he has failed, and will continue to fail, to come up with anything that makes sense. Thus, my position is affirmed.
I did not misunderstand Thomas' position. We all understand that death ends the marriage (Rom7:2-4). Nevertheless, Tom does not fully understand that divorce ends a marriage. He thinks Jesus changed the Law to say a divorce must be because of adultery before it is really a divorce that FREES the parties, but he cannot explain why the Jews did not use this against Him. In previous installments I have explained what "except it be for fornication" means. He misuses the Roman text to teach that the divorced person is still "bound." Tom refuses to limit this text to its context or intended purpose. He says "He remains bound until she dies." But this text does not mention any exception, thus it teaches too much for Tom.
"The marriage and the bond are not the same!"
This is a straw man designed to get around Paul's clear teachings in 1Cor7:8,9. If a legal/scriptural marriage exists then a bond, i.e., marriage bond, exists. One who is "unmarried" is not obligated to faithfulness to another and is free to marry.
"…After a man divorces his wife, civil law may obligate him to support her with alimony. They are divorced, but they may still be "bound" (obligated) to each other." Tom, you should know better. Legal obligations, such as alimony, have no bearing on whether one is married or not. The idea that one can be divorced but still bound, and thus forbidden to actually marry another, has no scriptural foundation.
"Robert's comment that no exception is stated in Romans 7 has no merit, for the exception is stated elsewhere (Matthew 5:32;19:9)."
Tom uses circular reasoning here. My comment did have merit. His teaching in the text he noted is what is in question. I have shown that his idea of what Jesus taught cannot possibly be correct, yet he uses it to prove his exegesis of another text.
1Cor7:8,9
"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry.…"
Tom says, "…Such marriages would have to conform to God's requirements (e.g., Matthew 19:9)." But, once again, we see him using circular reasoning. He uses his view of Matt. 19:9 to try to explain away Paul's clear teaching. In my previous installment I used a lot of space talking about the fact that brethren start with Jesus' teaching and then seek to explain everything else to conform to what they think He said. But since what they think He said cannot be correct, unless Jesus lied and transgressed the Law, we really have no choice but to reject Tom's idea of what Jesus said. We must believe and obey Paul.
1Cor7:1,2
Thomas would have you believe that the above text cannot mean what it says because it contradicts verse 11. I showed in my previous installment that verse 11 is not directed to the divorced but to those merely separated (departed gk chorizo). Yet he stated, "…He/she is limited to marrying the former spouse (:11)." He then replied, "He/she may not marry another because to do so is to commit the very thing Paul is seeking to avoid in these instructions- sexual immorality (Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 19:9)." Once again, Tom references texts to support his point that amount to circular reasoning. Until Tom can show that Jesus did not break His promise or contradict the Law by changing it, which his position requires, his reply will be seen as circular reasoning. Question: doesn't the text teach that marriage is designed to help one avoid fornication?
Unanswered question:
"Is one actually divorced just because he/she departs?" What if the departed comes back and reconciles? In view of the fact that separations are common, we fully understand the need for a formal declaration of divorce. Of course we don't even have to use our reasoning on that; all we need to do is hear, accept and obey what God has said (Deut24:1-4) .
Tom wrote, "As long as that second (or subsequent) marriage is maintained and one's former mate is living, he/she commits adultery with the second spouse."
First, note that Tom said the adultery is with the second spouse. That is NOT what the text says. Mark's account makes it clear that the adultery the man commits is "against her," i.e., the wife he "put away" unlawfully, causing her to commit adultery.
Tom wrote, "Jesus said that Moses allowed men to put away their wives (a reference to Deuteronomy 24:1), but Robert correctly says that Deuteronomy 24:1 did not allow men to 'put away' their wives without divorcing them. Therefore, 'put away' in Matthew 19:8 must involve divorce, as that is what Moses allowed."
My brother is slowly catching on. Indeed, the phrase "put away" can be involved in divorce, but it is not THE divorce (as defined by Moses) as some are now erroneously contending. But it cannot be that divorce itself was what Moses "suffered," because he gave a command to the men to actually divorce the women whom they evidently were going to simply "put away," which is what God hates (Mal2:14-16). The text noted indicates that "putting away" is dealing treacherously. Because of such dealings God gave the divorce law through Moses (Deut24:1-4) . That Moses' decree was a "command" is affirmed by Jesus. He told Jews who were evidently "putting away" that "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept" (Mark10:3-5).
In previous installments I have noted the significance of the fact that the ASV, and other reliable trusted versions, NEVER translates apoluo as divorce. Tom notes that the ASV concordance puts the heading as "divorce" for Matt19:9. Well, don't you suppose a different group of men, or maybe even one man, made that decision? The significant thing is how the group of language experts translated apoluo when they did the translation work. If they had understood the language to mean "divorce" that is how they would have rendered it in the text. Proponents of the traditional view, that contend that Jesus changed the Law on divorce, have to ignore the most trusted versions and rely on the new untrustworthy versions and scholars who were influenced by Catholicism.
I used Jeremiah 3:8 to show that the "put away equals divorce" doctrine makes no sense. God said, "I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce." Tom's doctrine has the passage saying, I DIVORCED HER AND I DIVORCED HER. But Tom thinks he has wiggle room. He stated: "If 'put her away' means divorce in this text, then the passage would read as follows: 'I had divorced her, and given her a bill of divorce.' The divorce is accompanied by a written declaration. " It appears that Tom has taken the new position that a divorce occurs before the bill of divorce is written and presented. But such reasoning is absurd! The idea that one could treat a woman this way is what brought on the need for the divorce law given by Moses. (Obviously it is treachery "against her" because she would sin if she marries another.) God said "let not man put asunder." Isn't God the only one that can "put asunder" (divorce)? If man can do it without following the procedure God gave (just "put away") then isn't man also able to "put asunder"? Answer please?
My opponent has to try to change the definition of divorce to deal with my argument. Nevertheless, my argument stands.
"Robert states that 'denying marriage was included in the catalog of 'doctrines of devils.'" However, 1Timothy 4:3 obviously has no reference to our forbidding/condemni ng unscriptural marriages!"
TRUE! But since you are condemning scriptural marriages, marriages that take place after a divorce as described by Moses that left the divorced "unmarried" and free to marry, according to Paul, you are doing what the text condemns!
Tom asks, "Was John wrong for 'forbidding' Herod's marriage to Herodias (Mark 6:18)?"
No, but he did not forbid anyone to have a marriage at all, as does my opponent's doctrine.
Tom notes that homosexual marriages and polygamous marriages are sinful marriages. No argument here. We can teach against such without being guilty of "forbidding to marry," but if we disallow marriage for someone who has no marriage, being divorced as defined by Moses, we are guilty. We would also be disobeying Paul's command to "let them marry." Thus, we would take away God's means for them to "avoid fornication" (1Cor7:1,2,28, 36).
Tom wrote: "Robert refuses to recognize the simple principle that Jesus could teach in preparation for His kingdom (during His ministry) without contradicting Moses' law." Previously I wrote, "What Jesus actually said in Matt19:9 MUST be applied to those to whom it was spoken." Tom evidently is unable to grasp this simple concept. Once again he makes note of some facts regarding God's original intent on marriage and about pointing to the future, and says these facts are relevant to the Pharisees, but this does not help him with the conundrum. I proved, using passages from verses 7-11, that Jesus' comments were directed to the people present – people who were looking for a reason to kill Jesus. Questions: 1) Why did no one charge Jesus with breaking the Law on MDR? 2) Were some of those listening to Jesus guilty of committing adultery? 3) Did they need to repent THEN or LATER? 4) If they were not guilty as charged did Jesus not lie to them by telling them their practice was sin?
Whether Jesus "proclaimed New Testament doctrines in anticipation of His kingdom" or not, is irrelevant. He could do that on certain subjects without flatly contradicting Moses' Law on divorce, which is what Tom's position on MDR has Him doing. Thus, my position is believable – Tom's is not. While Tom says Jesus did not contradict Moses and that He kept the Law, his doctrine is false unless he can show how Jesus did make new law on MDR, while everyone listening to Him believed it was acceptable for Him to do so.
Tom seeks to solve the problem his doctrine faces by talking about some things Jesus said that were relevant to the Jews -- namely their abuse of the divorce law. But this does not help him either -- it is just more smoke. My friend is between a rock and a hard place and he needs to admit it instead of offering such quibbles.
In my previous article I stated that to use the word divorced in place of put away is to change the entire meaning, and with consequences that are unacceptable. Tom replied: "I will agree that the 'consequences' appear 'unacceptable' to Robert and to many others who resist Bible teaching." Tom, it is the tradition that you teach that I resist because it makes Jesus a sinner and a liar. These are consequences that you evidently are either not willing to see or are willing to accept.
Tom says he has demonstrated that "divorce" is in view in passages such as Matt5:32 and 19:9 and that I have not refuted this evidence. His "demonstration" (proof) was to quote from men and some new versions. The following are some versions that do not translate apoluo as divorce in Matt5:32: ASV, BBE, Darby, DRB, LITV, MKJV, WE, WEB, WYC, YLT. Shouldn't we make our own determination as to the meaning of apoluo by using good hermeneutists in our study?"Robert, you still have not found a passage of scripture proving that 'ALL divorced persons may marry.' I have cited verses to prove SOME divorced persons may marry:"
Tom, are we not supposed to follow what the inspired apostle says? He did not say, "let some of the unmarried" marry," did he? Speaking of ALL unmarried (which includes the divorced) he said, "LET THEM MARRY." Your position has to SUPPLY the word "some" in place of "them," whereas mine accepts what it says.In his summary, Tom recites the traditional position. I have observed that to do so is a common practice and actually seems to be presented as an argument. But it is dogma and it proves nothing.
Divorce, as Tom defines it, does not sever God's bond, but divorce as Moses defined it DOES sever the marriage bond. Thus, divorce ends a marriage and those divorced are free to marry another without sin (1Cor7:27,28) . Others simply must "let them marry."
The traditional view on MDR that Tom holds allows one who has been divorced to marry again, but only the one to whom he/she is "bound." (Supposedly, though they are not married in man's eyes they are still married (bound) in God's eyes.) It matters not that their previous spouse has married another and had children. The only hope of a "scriptural marriage" is to break up this "unscriptural marriage" and remarry the original spouse. But God condemned the practice. He said it is "abomination before the LORD" (Deut24:4).
Answer to Questions:
1. Today, she gets the house.
2. No. Deut24:4.
3. No. Col3:19.
4. Usually this is the case, but there are cases where a man divorces his wife, but does not "put away" or "send out of the house."
5. One who has no marriage and is of age.
6. One of the parties in a dead marriage.
7. Already discussed.
8. Divorced.
9. I have not denied the point.
10. It could.
11. Christ did not change the Law on MDR during His ministry.
Concluding Remarks:
I have enjoyed studying the Bible with my brother in Christ, Dr. Thomas Thrasher. He is intelligent, respectful and polite. Unfortunately, we are not in agreement on MDR, but perhaps our efforts together will serve to help others to learn the truth on this most important issue.