1. Scenario: A woman in Jesus' day is sent away, repudiated, put out of the house, dismissed by her husband who hates her. His finances are such that he can't afford more than one wife at a time nor can he afford to pay back the dowry. The man marries another. She departs, leaves, and is consequently separated from her husband. Is the woman who was apoluo- ed divorced? If the man has committed adultery, whom was it against or with whom and at what point did he do it? If he decides to take her back could he do so and what legal arrangements, if any, would need to be made?
Answer:
If the man never completed the divorce, then she was not "apoluo-ed" in the sense the word is used in Matthew 19:8. If the man has committed adultery, then it would be "against" his original wife and "with" whichever woman he had unlawful sexual relations with (and at that point). Assuming there was a divorce, if the original wife subsequently remarries, and that marriage ends in divorce or death, then the original husband cannot take her back (Deut 24:1-4).
2. If the woman in the scenario above was not divorced, and other men were merely sending wives away and marrying another, would this not be "adultery against her" and would this not be something Jesus would take opportunity to condemn, rather than fall for their trap to get Him to take sides on the controversial issue of whether divorce itself could be done for any reason? Remember, the apostle Paul (by inspiration) would soon deal with questions from Christians regarding who could marry. So why at this point teach something contrary to the Law that would make Him a liar, transgressor of the Law, teacher of an unjust practice of punishing innocent people and something that would for sure result in His enemies having something to use against him.
Answer:
Jesus was asked about divorce in Matthew 19:7, not about a woman who was not divorced. In verse 8 he told why Moses allowed "putting away," and contrasted that teaching with God's teaching on MDR from the beginning. While on earth, Jesus did begin to explain facets of his soon to come into force New Testament law, and he did that because it would have been the wise and prudent thing to do under the circumstances. Jesus' MDR law does not punish innocent (or guilty) people. Instead, it is designed to keep people from committing adultery. It is just like when I forbid my children from doing illegal drugs - that is not a punishment in any sense of the word. Regarding a woman not divorced, New Testament law forbids separation and divorce in passages like Matthew 19:6 and I Corinthians 7:10.
3. Please explain how a man under the Law (that allowed divorce and polygamy) could possibly commit adultery by legally divorcing a wife and legally marrying another. Keep in mind WHO was addressed--people present rather than people in the future and the current Law that was in effect. Please go into detail as to how a man and a wife (legally married) can commit adultery if they are faithful to each other. Please answer in view of the fact that immediately before teaching regarding "putting away" Jesus said He was not going to change the Law in the least before "all is fulfilled," and that the Jews evidently did not look upon Jesus' condemnation of their CURRENT practice as something contrary to the Law.
Answer:
If a man divorced his wife for a reason less than uncleanness, then he violated Deuteronomy 24:1 and therefore sinned. It does not call the sin adultery. A man and his wife can commit adultery today if, for example, the wife is bound (obligated) to another man (Romans 7:2-3). When a man unscripturally divorces his wife and has sexual relations with another (within unscriptural marriage or outside of marriage), the unscriptural divorce does not change the fact that he has an obligation to the first woman he is supposed to be married to, and therefore the sexual relations with another constitutes cheating on the first.
4. If a municipality enacted Deut. 24:1-4 as its legally recognized definition of divorce (write certificate of divorce, present it to her, and put her out of the house) would such be contrary to the Lord's teachings?
Answer:
It would be different than New Testament law, because Deuteronomy 24:1-4 allows divorce for uncleanness, while Jesus' New Testament law only allows divorce for fornication.
As far as the divorce itself is concerned (without respect to the cause), a municipality today could enact the procedure for divorce that Deuteronomy 24:1 details, and it would not be contrary to the Lord's New Testament teachings. God does not bind the exact procedure for marrying or divorcing, except that we (the ones getting married or divorced) must comply with societal laws and customs.
5. If Jesus abrogated (abolished) the Law before "all is fulfilled" by changing the divorce law from "A divorced woman may go be another man's wife" to "A divorced woman will commit adultery if she marries," why did the Jews (who sought to kill Him) not charge Him with breaking His promise and with teaching contrary to the Law?
Answer:
Jesus did not abolish the law until the cross (Colossians 2:14). When Jesus contrasted his New Testament law with Old Testament law in Matthew 5:21-48, he was quick to let his listeners know in verses 17-19 that the Old Testament law would still be in effect until he finished fulfilling that law (which especially included dying on the cross).
6. Do we agree that if we want to understand the MDR issue we must use good hermeneutics, which means we must not start with an obscure passage, draw a conclusion on it, and then seek to force all related scriptures to harmonize with our original conclusion?
Answer:
We must use good hermeneutics. No passages are obscure ("of little or no prominence") to God, and shouldn't be to us. Instead we should try to be familiar with all of the Bible, especially the New Testament law. I do think it is good judgment to interpret "hard to understand" passages in a way that will harmonize with "clear" ones, but sometimes people call clear passages "unclear" so they can ignore them and teach false doctrine.
1. If Jesus is just explaining the true meaning of the Old Testament MDR law in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, what New Testament passage would authorize divorce (even for adultery) today?
Answer:
God gave the universal divorce law long before the New Testament went into effect. The only passage in the Bible that defines divorce is Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Man's idea of divorce, merely putting away, resulted in adultery. The fact that Jesus alluded to that law and that his words are in what we consider the New Testament (Mark 10:5), indicates that the universal divorce law should still be respected. Remember, we are not talking about New Testament church doctrine here. At any rate, by implication it is apparent that Paul understood and respected the universal law on divorce. The following are two such passages:
First, he said: "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: for it is better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor. 7:8, 9). The word "unmarried" obviously includes those who are divorced, and Paul's emphasis was on the NEED for marriage rather than the CAUSE of the divorce. In fact, he said NOTHING about the cause anywhere in his writings.
Second, he wrote: "I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife" (1 Cor. 7:26-27).
The word "bound" means "married" and "loosed" surely has reference to being divorced.
2. In the Waters/Thrasher debate, Tommy wrote "However, Jesus' teaching often pointed people to a time beyond Moses' law to the arrival of His kingdom (Matthew 4:17- 'From that time Jesus began to preach ... Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'). For example, He taught people about the Lord's supper (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20), the new birth (John 3:3-5), and church discipline (Matthew 18:17). Although He kept Moses' law perfectly while it was still in effect, He also prepared people for service to God according to the 'new testament' (Hebrews 9:15; 12:24; 2 Corinthians 3:6-11). While His life was consistent with the law of Moses, Jesus unquestionably proclaimed New Testament doctrines in anticipation of His kingdom." You replied "Indeed, Jesus did often do what Tom affirms." Considering those two quotes, did Jesus ever do (while on earth) what I call "preparatory teaching," that is, did he ever teach New Testament law that would not be applicable as law at the moment he said it?
Answer:
Of course Jesus did preparatory teaching, but the issue here is, "Did Jesus tell the people things that were unequivocally contrary to Moses regarding some existing law?" Look at the entire context of Matthew 19:3-10. Notice to whom the words are addressed. Notice that the text says "and he said unto them" and "I say unto you." Who were they? They were the Pharisees who came to tempt him (19:3). Those words Jesus spoke were true when he spoke them. The idea that Jesus' teachings here were merely "preparatory teachings" is nothing but an effort to get around the conundrum that the traditional MDR view has Jesus contradicting Moses and breaking his own promise not to change the law at that time.
3. Did Jesus, according to Matt. 19:8-9, suffer the same thing that Moses suffered?
Answer:
Absolutely not! The thing that Moses "suffered" was the whole problem. But it wasn't divorce that he suffered or allowed. Moses gave a command (which Jesus acknowledged), but what he suffered was putting away without proper divorce proceedings (Deut. 24:1-4; Mark 10:5). Thus, you can see that Jesus' statement was not a contradiction of the Law. Rather, it was an observation (Matt. 19:8) that something was allowed (without punishment), even though wrong, that was never intended from the beginning. No punishment was exacted for what the men were doing, which was a treacherous act (Mal. 2:14) against the wife (Mark 10:11) that Jesus called adultery. Malachi, as well as Jesus, dealt with this situation of putting away without proper divorce proceedings. Men in Malachi's day had simply put away their wives without giving them a bill of divorce so they could be another man's wife. This makes it easy to understand why a woman that is put away could be said to commit adultery if she marries another man.
4. If I legally divorce my wife Carol as it is normally done today, would I have "apoluo-ed" Carol?
Answer:
The answer to your question depends on whether you actually put her away physically after the papers are served. Under the Law the wives were property. The men could "apoluo" (send away a wife) but that would not release the wife, which she would welcome so she could "go be another man's wife" (Deut. 24:1-4). I know a case (and it is not all that uncommon) in which a man divorced his wife but the separation did not last--they continued to live together. Eventually, they got married again and are happily married to this day. So, the ambiguity of asserting that "put away" (apoluo) means divorce is rather obvious.
That being said, since "apoluo" is part of the divorce process you would have "apoluo"-ed her if you sent her out of the house, but it should be very clear to anyone who has studied this subject that saying you have put your wife away does not indicate you divorced her. It could mean you had her committed to an insane asylum. In fact, when you look up the definition of "put away" in an online dictionary you will see that the phrase can mean several things, but divorce is seldom given as a meaning.
5. What is the difference between being "bound" to one man and being "married" to another (in Romans 7:2-3)?
Answer:
Brother Pat, before I answer I want us to read the text from God's Word translation (1-4): "Don't you realize, brothers and sisters, that laws have power over people only as long as they are alive? (I'm speaking to people who are familiar with Moses' Teachings.) For example, a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he is alive. But if her husband dies, that marriage law is no longer in effect for her. So if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she will be called an adulterer. But if her husband dies, she is free from this law, so she is not committing adultery if she marries another man. In the same way, brothers and sisters, you have died to the laws in Moses' Teachings through Christ's body. You belong to someone else, the one who was brought back to life. As a result, we can do what God wants."
I see nothing at all in this text that supports the idea that one can be "bound" but not "married" to someone. While the text says death dissolves a marriage it does not contradict Moses and say divorce doesn't. Paul merely used death to make a point.
We have no reason to conclude that "obligation" and "bound" mean the same thing. One can be obligated to a woman in some way financially or otherwise, yet not be "bound" to her in any way related to marriage. The law of the land (authorized of God Rom. 13) is what binds a man and woman.
A woman bound (married) could not marry or have sex with another as this would make her an adulteress. Did you ever wonder why Paul spoke of the woman and not the man? Under the Law (which is that to which what Paul alluded), the man was allowed to have more than one wife. Thus, we can't use this text to teach who may marry because it is not applicable to both the man and the woman of our day.
If you look at verse four (which I have supplied) you will see that Paul is using the marriage law (as it previously applied) to make a point regarding the change of law. Those who are now in the body of Christ are married to another because the first husband (the Law) is dead. Christians are therefore free from it and are married to Christ.
This text was never intended to teach regarding divorce and it certainly does not teach that there is a difference between being "bound" and "married." That idea seems to have been conjured up in the mind of J.T. Smith and then published in Searching the Scriptures in 1984, as a way to explain Paul's clear teaching regarding the "unmarried," to harmonize with the false assumption that Jesus taught that a divorced person could not marry unless the divorce was for adultery. But then nowhere in Paul's writing does he talk about the "cause for divorce." If this text proves that one is still married unless his spouse dies, it proves too much.
Regarding the "marriage and bond" teaching, Gene Frost (in his conclusion of an article) offered some very wise advice. Below are his concluding remarks from his article published in Gospel Truths:
Marriage and Bond
"I fear that there has been such a desire to rush into print any and every thing that seems to support a position that clarity of thought and properly reasoned arguments have suffered. I therefore appeal to all who are involved in this controversy to slow down, to calmly and fully study the points to be made. A lot of time can be wasted in correcting foolish arguments, which should not have been made in the first place. Study the Bible to learn the truth, what God would have us to believe, rather than to support a preconceived idea. Now is the time for cool heads and reasoned studies to prevail." Gospel Truths Volume XV, Number I (January 2004)
It is unfortunate that the above did not follow Smith's article in Searching the Scriptures in 1984.
6. Do you consider incorrect all of the following 32 lexicons, grammarians, and translations that indicate "put away" (apoluo) and "divorce" are basically synonyms in the MDR passages? If not, please explain.
Greek Lexicographers
Greek-English New Testament Lexicon (Berry, 1952): �... to release, let go, to send away, ... divorce ...� (p. 12)
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Thayer, 1967): �... to set free ... to let go, dismiss ... to let go free, to release ... used of divorce ... Mt. i.19; v. 31 sq; xix.3, 7-9; Mk. x.2, 4, 11; Lk. Xvi.18 ... � (p. 66)
The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, 1979): �... set free, release, pardon ...let go, send away, dismiss�a. divorce ... Mt 1:19; 5:31f; 19:3, 7-9; Mk 10:2, 4, 11 ... Lk 16:18 ...� (p. 96)
Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Gingrich, 1975): �... release,, set free, pardon ... let go, send away, dismiss, ... Divorce ...� (p. 24)
Index-Lexicon to the New Testament (Young, n.d.): �...dismiss, divorce, forgive, let depart, let go, loose, put away, release, send away, set at liberty ...� (p. 61)
A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament (Strong, 1890): �... to free fully ... relieve, release, dismiss ... divorce ...� p. 14)
The Analytical Greek Lexicon (Zondervan, 1970): �... to loose ... to release ... to divorce to remit, forgive ... to liberate, discharge ... to dismiss ... to allow to depart, to send away ...� (p. 46)
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Vine, 1966): �... to let loose from, let go free ... it is further used of divorce in Matt. 1:19; 19:3, 7-9; Mark 10:2, 4, 11; Luke 16:18 ...� (vol. I, p. 329)
The Englishman�s Greek Concordance of the New Testament (Wigram, 1970): �... depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let depart, let go, loose, put away, release, send away, set at liberty� (p. 953)
Greek Grammarians
Learn To Read the Greek New Testament (Powers, 1982): �release/send away/divorce / forgive� (p. 321)
Teach Yourself New Testament Greek (Macnair, 1995): �release, send away, divorce� (p. 462)
Greek Translators (Matthew 5:32)
New King James Version: �But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.�
New American Standard Version: �But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.�
New International Version: �But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery.�
Revised Standard Version: �But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.�
New English Bible: �But what I tell you is this: If a man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity he involves her in adultery; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.�
Today�s English Version: �But I tell you: if a man divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, then he is guilty of making her commit adultery if she marries again; and the man who marries her commits adultery also.�
A New Translation: �But I tell you, anyone who divorces his wife for any reason except unchastity makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.�
King James Version: �But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.�
Greek Translators (Matthew 19:9)
New King James Version: ��whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.�
New International Version: ��anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.�
New American Standard Bible: ��whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.�
New Living Translation: ��whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery�unless his wife has been unfaithful.�
English Standard Version: ��whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.�
New Life Version: ��whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.�
Holman Christian Standard Bible: ��whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.�
New International Reader�s Version: ��Anyone who divorces his wife and gets married to another woman commits adultery. A man may divorce his wife only if she has not been faithful to him.�
Today�s New International Version: ��anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.�
Revised Standard Version: ��whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.�
New Revised Standard Version: ��whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.�
Complete Jewish Bible: ��whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery!�
Weymouth New Testament: ��whoever divorces his wife for any reason except her unfaithfulness, and marries another woman, commits adultery.�
Answer:
All of the lexicons say "apoluo" means what I have been saying it means-- NONE say "apoluo" always means divorce. Thus, we have to consider the context and I think we agree that we must do that ourselves rather than accept the opinions of others, no matter how highly they are regarded. The statement "used of divorce" comes up rather frequently in the writings of the scholars you noted. But what does that prove? Since "apoluo" means "put away, send away, repudiate," it is impossible to tell from the word itself whether one meant a legal divorce (that required a certificate) or if he only meant what he said--what the word means. Why, a number of preachers who teach as you do consistently use the phrase "put away" when speaking of divorce--all the while knowing that one can put away and not divorce. It is misuse of the language because it does not make clear what is meant. Jessie Jenkins, in Gospel Truths, took the position that "separation" is divorce, which is obviously wrong. (Link to my refutation of that teaching) http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-bible.htm
We should not let the uninspired writings of men determine what we believe, especially when it comes to divorce and remarriage, which is a topic regarding which many of the scholars of note were influenced by Catholicism that teaches error regarding who may marry. Rather, we must determine the meaning by the context as we apply other hermeneutical rules in our study.
But let the reader not be deceived into thinking that all scholars were greatly influenced by Catholic tradition, because many of the best translators refused to translate "apoluo" as "divorce" anywhere in the New Testament. The KJV would be among the list below had it not been for its inconsistency in ONE place, which was probably because groups worked independently and did not compare their work for consistency. At least, this has been given as the reason for lack of consistency such as different spellings or different translations of certain words that are found in various books of the Bible.
(ASV) but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is PUT AWAY committeth adultery.
(Bible in Basic English) But I say to you that everyone who puts away his wife for any other cause but the loss of her virtue, makes her false to her husband; and whoever takes her as his wife after she is PUT AWAY, is no true husband to her.
(Darby) But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and whosoever marries one that is PUT AWAY commits adultery.
(DRB) But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is PUT AWAY, committeth adultery.
(KJ3 Literal Translation Bible) 32 But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one put away commits adultery.
(LITV) But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one PUT AWAY commits adultery.
(MKJV) But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is PUT AWAY commits adultery.
(Worldwide English) But I tell you, no man may send away his wife unless she has committed adultery. If he does send her away, he is making her commit adultery. And if a man marries a woman who has been sent away from her husband, he commits adultery.
(World English Bible) But I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery.
(Wuest) Whoever marries her who has been dismissed commits adultery.
(WYC) But I say to you, that every man that leaveth his wife [that every man that shall leave his wife], except (for) [the] cause of fornication, maketh her to do lechery, and he that weddeth the forsaken wife, doeth adultery.
(Young's Literal Translation) But I-I say to you, that whoever may PUT AWAY his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been PUT AWAY doth commit adultery.
Look up the phrase "put away" in an online dictionary. It does not mean divorce. The fact that many of the best and most trusted translators NEVER translated "apoluo" as divorce should tell us something. If Deuteronomy 24:1-4 gives a correct definition of divorce, one cannot translate "apoluo" as "divorce" without making a great assumption and being guilty of interpolation.
Also, some of the most highly regarded scholars explain 1 Corinthians 7:11 as referring to a couple that is separated, rather than divorced, thus destroying (if you accept scholarship as proof) the argument that Paul taught that a divorced person cannot marry again. We will visit this later, I am sure.