Patrick Donahue's First Negative

The proposition: The scriptures teach that God approves marriage for every unmarried person, including those who have divorced a mate or have been divorced by a mate, regardless of the reason.

I certainly appreciate my friend and brother Robert Waters being willing to stand up for what he believes. However, his position on divorce/remarriage is dead wrong, and I intend to make that clear in this debate.

Robert begins by suggesting it violates God's justice for his marriage law to change from the old covenant to the new covenant, but this same reasoning would mean we still must keep the Sabbath today, men still must be circumcised today, and Christians still must sacrifice animals in worship today. We are not under the old covenant today period; we are under the new (Hebrews 7:12)... And Galatians 5:3 teaches those trying to be justified by the old law are not allowed to pick and choose which parts of the old law still apply today (as Robert and the Sabbatarians do).

Deuteronomy 24:1-4's context confirms it is only Old Testament teaching:

• Verse 5 reads "When a man has taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war or be charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, and bring happiness to his wife whom he has taken." Is this teaching applicable today?

• Verses 10-11 read "When you lend your brother anything, you shall not go into his house to get his pledge. You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you lend shall bring the pledge out to you." Does that command apply today?

• Verse 18a reads "But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you from there." We see then this chapter's teaching has never applied to Gentiles.

Jesus' MDR law is significantly different than Moses' MDR law. The following chart specifies some of those differences:

Robert, would you also say it's "not characteristic of God's justice to change the Law" in any of the above respects? The reader is correct to figure out Robert isn't consistent with own argument here.

Robert argues from I Corinthians 7:8-9 that the "unmarried" (without qualification) may marry. But we only have to look at the next two verses to see this argument refuted. Verse 11 presents a situation where a woman is "unmarried," yet she is told to "remain unmarried." This directly contradicts Robert's conclusion that all the unmarried (divorced) may remarry.

Matthew 5:32b also directly contradicts Robert's point when it says "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." The woman is divorced and therefore unmarried, but she is still forbidden from remarrying.

When we take I Corinthians 7:8-9 in context, we see it is not just talking about any unmarried person, but about unmarried people who are "loosed" (verses 27-28). And verse 10 provides a clear example of someone who is unmarried, but not loosed (free to marry), since they are told to remain unmarried or be reconciled.

Next Robert refers to my question #6 where Tommy Thrasher supplied 32 lexicons, grammarians, and translations that say the Greek word (apoluo) translated "put away" in the MDR passages means "divorce." Robert counters by saying there are "numerous" versions that never translate "apoluo" as divorce." If true, Robert's argument would also mean "put away" is not a valid translation for "apoluo" since there are "numerous" versions that never translate "apoluo" as "put away" (e.g., the NKJV). Robert makes out like it has to be one way or the other, that his translations are right and therefore my 32 sources have to be wrong. The truth is both Robert's sources and my sources are all correct. There's no contradiction. When the KJV (for example) translates "apoluo" "put away" in Matthew 5:32a, that doesn't mean "divorce" is a bad translation. The KJV goes on to translate "apoluo" in the "b" part of the same verse as "divorce," and since the two instances of "apoluo" in the verse are used interchangeably, the translators obviously intended the idea of "divorce" when they translated "put away." The same is true for the average reader; when they read "put away" in the MDR passages of the KJV, they are thinking "divorce." Robert's view is that all 32 scholars I quoted are wrong and his are right, but the truth is my scholars and his scholars are in agreement ? "apoluo," "put away," and "divorce" are all synonymous in the New Testament MDR passages.

Why is this so important? Because Robert's position is that all divorced people can remarry, but when you understand "apoluo" is used to mean "divorce," then Matthew 5:32b, Matthew 19:9a,b, Mark 10:11,12, and Luke 16:18a,b all say that people after unscriptural apoluo/divorce commit adultery upon remarriage.

Even though I am just quoting what God has to say on MDR, Robert accuses me of "forbidding marriage" in violation of I Timothy 4:4. Surely the reader can see the shallowness of Robert's argument here, because its consistent application would mean John the Baptist sinned when he forbad Herod's marriage in Mark 6:18, and Robert sins when he forbids polygamous and homosexual marriages. It's clear from verses like Matthew 5:32b ("whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery") that God expects us to forbid some marriages. The truth is I Timothy 4:4 is talking about forbidding scriptural marriages, not adulterous ones. The Bible doesn't contradict itself.

Robert then asserts my position punishes the innocent party, but we never read that God's marriage law is to punish anybody. The scriptures always reveal that the reason for any marriage prohibition is to keep someone from committing adultery. When I forbid my teenage sons from doing illegal drugs, am I punishing them, or trying to keep them from harm? When God tells a man too homely to find a wife that he must remain celibate, is God punishing him, or is God trying to keep him from committing fornication? Robert knows the answer.

One of the more critical mistakes Robert makes is thinking Moses allowed a man to kick his wife out of the house without divorcing her, and that problem is what Jesus is dealing with in Matthew 19:8-9 and etc.. If that were the case, Jesus should have said whoever puts away their wife "except he divorces her" (instead of "except for fornication"). Notice Mark 10:4 says Moses "suffered" (allowed) a man "to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away." So Moses only allowed the putting away if a bill of divorcement was given. Jesus confirms this truth in verse 5 where he says Moses wrote "this precept," that is, the precept of "bill of divorcement plus putting away." Robert agrees Moses wrote this precept in Deuteronomy 24:1, which commands the bill of divorcement to accompany the sending away. And just like a bill of sale is not the sale itself, but is a written record of a sale and only legitimate if a sale takes place, a bill of divorcement is not the divorce itself, but is a written record of a divorce and only legitimate if a divorce takes place. So Moses never allowed a kicking out without a bill of divorce (which implies a divorce took place). In other words, Moses required the divorce.

Now let me explain why Robert's error here is so critical. You'll remember Jesus teaches in Mark 10:5 that Moses allowed "bill of divorce plus putting away" because of the hardness of the Israelites' hearts. [Robert agreed with this in his debate with Tommy Thrasher when he said "The Law under which Jesus lived made provisions for a marriage to be dissolved (Deut. 24:1-2) because of the hardness of man's heart (Matt. 19:8)."] Next, in Matthew 19:8-9 Jesus contrasts his teaching with what Moses allowed because of the hardness of their hearts. Matthew 5:32 details this as Jesus contrasts his teaching with the "putting away plus writing of divorcement" in verse 31. So because of hardness of hearts, Moses allowed putting away as long as it was accompanied by a bill of divorce. And that is exactly what Robert allows - putting away as long as it's accompanied by a bill of divorce. But in my question #3, Robert agrees that Jesus didn't allow what Moses allowed, therefore the inescapable conclusion is that Jesus didn't allow what Robert allows. To reiterate, in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:8-9, Jesus clearly contrasts his teaching with what Moses allowed. Therefore Jesus does not allow (except in the case of fornication) what Moses allowed, which was the "putting away plus writing of divorcement."

Robert thinks since Jesus was talking to Jews that his teaching on MDR must necessarily have applied to the Jews. But Robert admits in my question #2 that Jesus sometimes did what we call "preparatory" teaching while on earth, meaning teaching that would not apply until the New Testament came into effect. We conclude such based upon verses like the following:

• Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were (proclaimed, NAV) until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached"

• John 14:26 "Bu" the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall "bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (meaning the apostles would teach things after Pentecost that Jesus taught them while on earth)

The following illustration demonstrates the wisdom and prudence of preparatory teaching in such a situation:

We might call this "preparatory teaching."

A good example of preparatory teaching done by Jesus is found in Matthew 18:17. There Jesus gives instruction about withdrawing from the unfaithful by the church before the church was yet in existence (Matthew 16:18). So this didn't apply per se when Jesus said it, but was to apply during the church (Christian) dispensation -- just like Matthew 19:9, etc..

Robert's point that Jesus teaching would have to apply at the time he spoke it isn't valid. I'm sure Robert would agree Jesus' teaching in Matthew 24:16-17 didn't apply at the time he spoke it. Robert might reply, "but the context lets us know that teaching wouldn't apply until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem." I agree, and further emphasize that we know Jesus' MDR teaching would not apply while the law of Moses was in effect, because Jesus contrasts his MDR teaching with Moses' MDR teaching in both Matthew 19:8-9 and 5:31-32 ("Moses' allowed/said" so-and-so, "but I say unto you").

Robert says under the law a man could divorce his wife "regardless of the reason" and then "had a right to marry another." Robert implies the same should be true under New Testament law. But this flatly contradicts Matthew 19:9a ("whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" NKJV). It also contradicts I Corinthians 7:10-11 (explained above) and Romans 7:2-3.

Robert says I misuse Romans 7:2-3, but what the passage actually says is that if a woman is married to a second man while her original husband still lives, she is committing adultery. The passage does not tell us the status of her first marriage, whether it ended in divorce or never ended, so we must not assume one way or the other. Either way, whether she is still married to her first husband or if the first marriage ended in unscriptural divorce, Romans 7:2-3 teaches the woman is guilty of adultery while married to another man. That is why this text contradicts Robert's position: Robert says a woman may remarry after unscriptural divorce; Romans 7:2-3 calls her an adulterous if she does. Why is she an adulterous?: because she is still bound ("under obligation" Thayer) to her original husband.

Robert questions my view of the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 because the text uses the word "fornication" instead of "adultery." But Robert already agrees with the answer to his logic: fornication includes adultery. Jesus likely used the word "fornication" because he wanted to also include other forms of fornication such as homosexuality, bestiality, and possibly unlawful relations before the marriage.

Robert asks me if God's marriage law (given by Moses) is universal. My answer is that Moses' law only applied to the Jews at that time, and applies to nobody today since we are under New Testament law. I am surprised a gospel preacher doesn't know we are not bound by the law of Moses today.

Robert asks me some questions about what procedure God requires for marriage and divorce. My answer is God requires no particular procedure, except that we must follow the law and custom of the society we live in. If the laws of Alabama say all you have to do to get married is what Isaac and Rebekah did in Genesis 24:67, then that would be all that is required. And if the law says all you have to do to get a divorce is get a permanent separation, then that would work. But in the U.S., both marriage and divorce are a legal matter, and so those legalities must be followed.

Robert says "Jesus did not contrast his New Testament law with Old Testament law," but he has no proof. In all six "ye have heard it said by them of old time, but I say unto you" cases in Matthew 5:21-48, Jesus contrasts his New Testament teaching with the law of Moses. Let's take swearing in verses 33-37 as a test case. Notice that what was "said by them of old time" in verse 33 correctly represents what the Old Testament taught ? if you swear to do something, you had better do it (Leviticus 19:12, Number 30:2, Psalms 15:1,4b). But Jesus' new law says don't swear "at all" (verse 34), a prohibition repeated by James 5:12. In all six cases, the thing said by them of old time is Old Testament law - either quoted verbatim or its meaning given correctly. And even Robert would agree in all six cases, Jesus" contrasting teaching represents New Testament law correctly. For a fuller treatment of this point, see my "Swearing, No Exception, and Matthew 5:21-48" debate charts at www.BibleDebates.info.

Jesus leaves no doubt in Matthew 19:9 and its parallels that remarriage after divorce (for reasons other than fornication) results in adultery. Why try to get around that plain fact?