I have not sidestepped any of your questions. You are correct that I do not consider Ron a false teacher. He is not. If he does teach false doctrine, then I will be glad to point that out to him or anyone else. Ron teaches only one person can lawfully divorce and remarry—those who put their spouse away for fornication. There are differences in application that different brethren have to resolve for themselves over various scenarios.
To you on this list, I am glad that Jeff admitted in so many words that civil procedure doesn’t inherently constitute “divorce” or “marriage.” If it could happen in other countries or civilizations without governmental regulations/laws and still be legitimate, then it is not inherently dependent for us today to impregnate Jesus’ terminology with American definitions. Now perhaps one day Jeff will see that the basis of his charges against good men as being false teachers is simply because of his present abode in America and not because of anything that is written.
Unfortunately for Jeff, there is no scripture that shows the pattern of civil protocol defining “put away” and what a Christian MUST do. Further, Jeff has failed to produce one passage that shows that God approves/accepts/authorizes a guilty fornicator to put away the innocent. Jeff has failed to produce one passage that shows the innocent cannot remarry if the guilty is the first to the courthouse. In all of Jeff’s writings, he failed to cite one example, one command or one necessary inference in which God takes away the innocent one’s right to remarry if the fornicator is the fastest to put away. Interestingly, he has limited God’s word and exception to civil procedure, even if our procedure defined divorce a backwards broom jumping! Interesting indeed! More on that later. Then he calls anyone a false teacher who doesn’t connect the dots the way he thinks they should be connected? Simply amazing!
Brother Belknap complains against some teaching that an innocent mate may remarry even if her first husband was the fastest to the courthouse and carried through the divorce. Not only does his reasoning set aside the commandment of God to keep his tradition of “speed” versus “longsuffering” and “methods” versus “cause,” but it also breeds inconsistency with his own teaching. His reasoning is because the innocent one is “put away” and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery. But then Jeff flip flops when the scenario is turned to an original marriage. He allows Herod, if Herod was never married before Herodias, to marry again because Herod only had someone else’s wife and did not have his legitimate woman. But Jeff, PLEASE SEE: Should I create a website www.mentalmarriage.com dedicated to one pet doctrine of “MENTAL MARRIAGE” and label you as a “Mental Marriage” Advocate? Jeff, Jesus said,
“…and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery” (Matt. 5:32)
If Herod was divorced by Herodias, he should not be allowed to marry again because “whoever marries one who is divorced commits adultery.” You have taken that phrase and misused it to a setting that Jesus’ was not addressing, so I suppose I can too! Jeff, is the marriage not “real” between Herod and Herodias? Is the divorce not real for Herod and Herodias for “whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery?” Is it not real? It may not be right, but it is real and so if they get a divorce to get out of adultery, then they should never be able to marry again! If not, why not? This is precisely the approach and reasoning that you take with divorce, so why should I not create a site and label you a false teacher for not agreeing with my absurd position? Show me the New Testament pattern of a man or woman married and in adultery who can then divorce, and one get marriage again. Where is the pattern? You should be embracing this position rather than denying it.
If it is true for one who had never had his proper marriage to go ahead and marry again to someone who has the right to, then why is it not true for the innocent one to have his/her proper “putting away” when of all people she is the only one that God has given the right to put away and remarry!?!
“Aner” and “gune” do not necessarily mean husband and wife but always mean “male” and “female” respectively. Agreed. In certain contexts they require “more” than “male” and “female.”
“Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:1, 2)
Teaching that “aner” only means man and “gune” only means woman would justify people living together. One could easily argue “I have my own woman” and be content to live in fornication.
Now that Jeff admits that “aner” and “gune” require, in the generic, “man” and “woman,” and do not always require “husband” and “wife” will he also then concede that “apoluo” doesn’t require lawyers, courtrooms, judges, papers, certificates, etc., but simply “dismissing”? If he would acknowledge such, he would shut his website down immediately and apologized to all he has mislead and falsely accused. If he doesn’t produce a passage and continues his website, he does so as a factious man. Where in the scriptures does it require such? It always means to depart/dismiss, but where does it require lawyers, judges, papers, courtrooms to fulfill Jesus’ teaching? If that makes me a “mental divorcer” I would rather stand with Joseph’s just example rather than with Belknap (Matt. 1:19). Belknap doesn’t believe a woman could be divorced secretly, evidently!
My outline of 1 Corinthians 7:11 still stands, “But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.”
- she departed (from the husband’s house)
- she was in the status of being “unmarried,” thus divorced
- she still had a “MAN” who was her “HUSBAND.” Thus she was divorced, but bound.
Belknap writes: < Steve, for all the words you used, you never answered my question. I asked: “Within this context, was He addressing those who sunder the “one flesh” (marriage) relationship or was He also including an action that was accomplished after the marriage was already sundered?” It could easily have been answered in one sentence, yet in three long paragraphs, you never once addressed it. Moreover, after sidestepping my question, you unbelievably asked another question of me. Questions are not answers! (I hope that all who are reading this exchange will “hear” exactly what brother Wallace’s silence to my actual questions is saying, loud and clear.)>
May all the readers know that there were contentious men in the first-century who didn’t like Jesus’ “question-answers.”
“Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, "By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?" But Jesus answered and said to them, "I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things” (Matt. 21:23, 24)
Why is asking a question to “answer” a question so unbelievable? I did answer your complicated question and you still have not given ONE passage that shows lawyers, courtrooms, papers and judges make up a scriptural divorce.
Jeff’s ranting about trying to make the “certificate of divorce” a “God-ordained national procedure” doesn’t help him either. He can only find at best that Moses permitted them to divorce their wives (according to Jesus ) and in doing so spoke of giving a certificate (permitted a certificate, Mk. 10:4). He cannot find a commandment to divorce any more than he can find a commandment to give a certificate. However, I would agree that it was taught that they should give their divorced wives a certificate. But even if Moses did command such, the certificate was not the divorce, but only stated or certified what had already happened. Jeff, the certificate was not the divorce! Surely you don’t believe that, do you?
“Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also” (Jer. 3:8)
Observe carefully:
- God “put her away”
- God then gave her a certificate.
Please give book, chapter and verse that shows the “certificate” is the divorce.” The certificate is no more the divorce in this passage than it is in Matthew 5:32. It is no more the divorce than repentance is baptism in Acts 2:38. Further, please show where giving a certificate requires, lawyers, judges, courtrooms, etc. Please also show where Christians are required to give a certificate under the New Covenant.
One could be like you in Jesus’ day and challenge Jesus’ teaching on the authority for a woman to divorce her husband. One might say, where is the pattern of a woman divorcing her husband? Where did Moses speak of it? Yet, Jesus clearly recognized such (Mk. 10:12).
You mentioned that it was the God-ordained procedure and yet you cannot show the “God-ordained” procedure for New Testament Christians. Further, if you lived under Moses’ time with your present level of argumentation, it seems to me that you would be seeking to bind a protocol of how the certificate is to be written, sealed and delivered, where the Christians should interject, etc. That is the absurdity of the issue.
Jeff illustrated:
< All this discussion revolving around “civil” protocol reminds me of the hand gun controversy. In an attempt to outlaw gun ownership by civilians, liberals try to con us into thinking that hand guns are killers when in reality, guns are only “tools” that people use to commit murder>.
Please show me from the scriptures how “lawyers, courtrooms, papers, fees, etc.” are tools/expediencies in carrying out a “sending away.” Guns in the hands of killers are deadly. Lawyers in the hands of fornicators are just as deadly according to you.
Jeff argued:
< Furthermore, I would have to disagree with your emphasis that “Jesus revealed the exception clause in the context of punishing the widespread liberal school of thought justifying trivial divorce or divorce for ‘any cause’ (Mat. 19:3).” This may have been part of the Lord’s intent, but from verse 4 to “the exception clause” revealed in verse 9, Jesus bypassed the teaching of the rabbis to what God said (was written) “at the beginning.” We do not know exactly what the Pharisees had in mind when they were “tempting him” (verse 3, cf. I Corinthians 2:11).>
You may disagree all you want, but such doesn’t prove anything. We do know what the Pharisees had in mind and that was to test Jesus’ teaching on limited divorce which conflicted with theirs of “any cause” (Mat. 19:3).
Since you cited human authority, so I will submit a quote from the scholar, Albert Barnes:
“There was considerable difference of opinion among the Jews for what causes the husband was permitted to do this. One of their famous schools maintained that it might be done for any cause, however trivial. The other, that adultery only could justify it. The truth was, however, that the husband exercised this right at pleasure; that he was judge in the case, and dismissed his wife when, and for what cause, he chose” (Barnes Notes, on Matthew 5:31).
Regarding his question 5, he said that I did not answer it. Whenever he doesn’t like the answer, he says I did not answer it. I linked an article I wrote on divorce and covenant-breaking of which he obviously did not scan for he would find that filled with scriptures and such.
Belknap asked, << Regardless of what the “methods/protocols” for marriage and divorce were and are, once one has been wrongfully put away (as you acknowledge they can be), where is the “book, chapter and verse which reveals a biblical pattern for someone to ‘put away’ their divinely-obligated man/woman after their one flesh (marriage) relationship had already been sundered?”>
Rather, a better question is, “Where is the biblical teaching that forbids the innocent one of putting her fornicating spouse away by his chosen methods or by state law?” Where is that passage Jeff? You produce one passage that shows the innocent’s right terminated of putting away the fornicator by the fornicator’s speed and methods, then I will recant all. You cannot find it though. You only find passages that speak on putting away, in the context of one sending them out of their house, and then you impregnate an American-Law-understanding into the text to sustain your point. Where is the passage that teaches a fornicator is permitted by God, or able to put away his innocent mate? You cannot find that either except in the halls of your imagination? Where is the scripture that shows a fornicator’s speed to put away somehow changes God’s law to the innocent one? Again, nothing! None of their marriages ended in the courtrooms. They ended when the husband sent his wife to the highway or when the woman having had enough, simply left. That is why your scenario with your particulars is not discussed directly in the scriptures.
I agree with Jeff’s statement here about his own absence of answering these questions: This conspicuous absence again only serves to reinforce my contention that there is no scriptural authority” for the guilty fornicator to terminate the innocent’s right to remarry”
Sorry Jeff, but this doesn’t answer either:
< II Timothy 1:13, “Hold fast the form (‘THE PATTERN,’ NKJV, ASV, RSV) of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.”
Where there is no pattern, Steven, there is NO authority. God has commanded us to obey His ministers regarding social protocol. For Paul wrote, “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Romans 13:2).>
You need to also balance it out by,
“because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15).
Such is not resisting the ordinance of God nor the powers that are by refusing to define “apoluo” by the way the government defines it for their own system. But such is resisting the ordinance of God by allowing the powers that be to define his words and his definitions. For example, the powers that be in some parts are defining marriage as between and man and a man. Christians cannot allow such a definition when we speak about and enter marriage. Likewise, we don’t use the federal government to define any other Bible word.
Regarding question 6, I don’t teach that or believe that the civil putting away with all of its procedures is a biblical putting away, thus two. I don’t teach that those things fulfill the task of putting away. Render unto Ceasar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. Where does the civil dissolution of the marriage have anything to do with God? There is only one biblical putting away that is recognized/permitted in the eyes of God and that is when an innocent mate sends away or leaves their spouse for fornication (Mat. 19:9). Without civil protocol, a fornicator who sends his wife out is in sin for fornication and can never remarry. The wife who was sent out (and that was pretty much all of the time in the Roman-Greco world), if innocent of the fornication in this scenario, can remarry in such circumstances. So, produce the passage that proves civil protocol as an inherent part of divorce or shut down your website like you said you would.
Regarding my questions to Belknap
Quest. 1: Jeff wrote: < Therefore, if a society recognizes broom-jumping as the accepted protocol by which one becomes married, and backward broom-jumping as the procedure by which one becomes divorced, then when one employs those culturally-recognized and accepted “procedures” with the intent to marry or divorce, they are married or divorced (right or wrong)!>
After playing hopscotch, Jeff never did clearly tell us whether marriage and divorce always “mandates” civil compliance and procedure. From Jeff’s answer, he would defend that the fornicator who is fastest at jumping over a broom backwards forever takes away the right of the innocent, vow-abiding spouse from ever remarrying? Is that not ridiculous? I am glad Jeff placed this quote in his rebuttal because it will certainly help people see the absurd position that he and his mentaldivorce.com site is in. Imagine, brethren, setting aside the word of God for backwards broom jumping! Amazing! In seeking to maintain good public relations with civil law, Jeff makes himself an outlaw against God!
Quest. 2: “Wallace’s Question # 2) Does the teaching of Jesus on “putting” away apply to civilizations where “divorce” is not recognized by the government? Wally Little says “no.” I say “yes.” What do you say?”
Belknap’s Answer To Question # 2) When brethren start asking “what if” questions using the most extreme and emotionally-charged scenarios, it does nothing to clarify scriptural teaching, but obscures it! If they wanted scriptural clarification, they would go to scripture and not scenarios that invariably involve someone who is suffering due to another’s actions.
This is not using emotionally charged argumentation. It is a fact! Jeff just doesn’t want to deal with it. Perhaps he should move to the Philippines and then he would have to.
< We are commanded to respect and obey the civil authorities, for God has placed them in power to rule over us (Romans 13:1-5; I Peter 2:13-17; Titus 3:1), and to disobey them is to disobey God. According to scripture, the accepted practice of each civilization should be the standard regarding social protocol, whatever it may be. (There is never an instance of marriage or divorce recorded in the Bible which was not a matter of public record and acknowledgement among the people of that civilization.)>
But being a matter of public record didn’t always involve ANY governmental legislation! Further, Jeff, we are not talking about respecting those in civil authority. We are talking about respecting what they legislate and whether their definitions of things can be substituted for what is written? If the government called “baptism” sprinkling shall we concur? Further, would you submit that one sprinkled-baptized had a legitimate baptism and should be accepted without being immersed? No, you would not accept the sprinkling because it is against God’s word even though it is referred to a “baptism” and a “socially recognized” practice. But you will accept a divorce when it is also against God’s word and not allow an innocent one to remarry? Sounds contradictory to me.
Quest. 3: Did Isaac need a legal certificate to marry Rebekah (in the eyes of God). 3a) If “YES” please cite the scripture 3b) If “NO” were you the one who added “(However you get married in a culture; requires that civil action to obtain a divorce.)” in Morris’ response? 3c) If “NO” do you also accept that a legal procedure is not inherent to divorce?
Belknap’s Answer To Question # 3) Isaac simply followed the socially-recognized procedure of his day. Hence, all in that society recognized him as being wedded at the time of their marriage. However, procedures sometimes change with dispensations. Deuteronomy 24 changed the socially-recognized procedure of divorcement for the Jews after the Mosaic decree was written.
Thanks for admitting that neither marriage nor divorce inherently requires lawyers, courtrooms, judges, papers, certificates, etc. Now, why can you not see that socially recognized procedure doesn’t define the action being done before God? Rebekah wore a veil to get married (Gen. 24:65). That was a socially recognizable deed. Shall we then require that all women wear veils to get married today? I don’t think you would. But you say because the government calls something a divorce and it requires a record of such, that such replaces Jesus simple teaching of sending away? Deuteronomy 24 regulated a practice that was already going on; divorces that were already happening. It was given to stifle trivial divorce, not promote it. The certificate didn’t define when the divorce occurred, viz. when the last stroke of ink was done, the divorce was final. It certified that it did occur and for what reasons.
Quest, 3b: < I did not write anything to you prior to the questions I asked you.>
I didn’t ask you if you wrote anything to me. I asked if you “added” the writing in red. Please don’t sidestep the question.
Quest. 3c: I am glad that you concede that a legal procedure is not inherent to the creation of the divorce. Please don’t cause anymore contention by insisting on scenarios which are not inherently a part of true divorce as seen in the eyes of God.
Quest 4: Wallace’s Question # 4) Do you forbid a woman (vow-abiding) whose fornicating, marital-bed desecrating, husband first sprang divorce papers upon her the right to remarry? If no, how do you reconcile passages like Matthew 19:9?
Belknap’s Answer To Question # 4) . . .However, if the “vow-abiding” womandoes not exercise the authorized action to put away her man for fornication prior to becoming put away herself, then she is the one whom Jesus described as “put away from her husband,” (Lk. 16:18; cf. Matthew 19:9) and as such, it is Jesus who “forbids” her marriage to another. I am simply reiterating His instruction regarding those who are put away.
False, Jesus is not discussing a woman who is beat by a fornicator in a civil or socially accepted procedure. The gov. doesn’t even allow “adultery” as a reason and therefore to be consistent, you would have to forbid all to divorce because there can never be a divorce for adultery. Further, as I mentioned above, if one never married before, is married in an adulterous union, then when divorced, she/he should never be allowed to marry again for “whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Mat. 5:32) “and as such, it is Jesus who ‘forbids’ her marriage to another. I am simply reiterating His instruction regarding those who are put away.”
Quest 5: Wallace’s Question # 5) Is civil protocol an absolute necessary part in establishing the meaning of “apoluo.”
Belknap’s Answer To Question # 5) Obviously the words “apoluo,” “chorizo” and “aphiemi” (all used in the context of divorce) are generic. Regarding divorce, they would include lawful (approved) as well as unlawful (unapproved) actions toward one’s marriage partner. Moreover, they would include whatever procedure is socially-accepted in any culture in which it was employed (for instance, backward broom-jumping). [Remember: there must be honesty in the sight of all men as well as God, II Corinthians 8:21.] Hence, once a spouse employs that socially-recognized procedure (regardless of whether right or wrong), then one has put away his/her mate, and the other becomes the put away person (as described in the 2nd parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18). After a wrongful divorce, the two remain bound (divinely obligated) to each other – though not married.
Okay then, “lawful” and “unlawful” divorces where one had never been married before and was not married to another who should not be married may not marry again because the one “becomes “the put away person (as described in the 2nd parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18). After a wrongful (or rightful) divorce, the two remain bound (divinely obligated) to each other—though not married.). If it works in one scenario, then it works in another.
Quest 6: Wallace’s Question # 6) Does Jesus bind a certificate of divorce today? If yes, please cite the scripture?
Belknap’s Answer To Question # 6) It seems a recurrent theme among your questions that you are trying to get around the finality of our socially-recognized and accepted procedure of divorce in this culture. However, if our own socially-recognized procedure for marriage was broom-jumping, and backward broom-jumping for divorce, would you acknowledge that the innocent, “vow-abiding” woman whose “marital bed-desecrating” husband divorced her (by jumping over the broom backwards) is now the one “which is put away from her husband” and thus becomes an adulteress when she marries another (as per Luke 16:18)? Or would you be asking me, “Does Jesus bind backward broom-jumping for divorce today? If yes, please cite the scripture?”
It is embarrassing that you ridiculed me for asking a questions when answering and then you do the very same thing! Why did you break your own procedure in answering questions? Why did you practice what you condemn?
Thus, the discussion over “procedure” is not relevant. What is relevant is: A) whether or not you acknowledge that one who is wrongfully divorced is nonetheless divorced in God’s eyes, even while still obligated to the man or woman that God joined him/her to (and you have told me that you do), and consequently, B) whether or not you accept Jesus’ teaching regarding the one who is divorced from their God-joined mate, as per Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b; Luke 16:18b; cf. Romans 7:2-3 (obviously not).
It is indeed relevant, because you are the one impregnating Jesus’ words for “put away” and “depart” as being done by civil procedure! Yes I do accept Jesus’ teaching. It pertains to all who are divorce. Only one type of divorcee can remarry—those who put their spouse away, those who send them away or left them, for fornication. You make it complicated, I don’t.
Once fornication has occurred, there no longer remains any obligation on the innocent one to the guilty. Once fornication occurs, the innocent may send the other away at any time or they may exercise “LONGSUFFERING” and wait for the other to come to his senses (as per the principle of 2Tim. 2: 26; 3:10). Do you count the longsuffering of one such a trial as “slackness” (2 Pet. 3:9)? When Israel committed adultery against God by worshipping the golden calf, God removed his presence from them, he was released from the covenant that was made; he could have destroyed them all, but He did not altogether divorce himself from them (Gen. 33:3). Would you have counseled God, be careful, because if Israel puts you away first, then you cannot ever have another nation?
< If “a certificate of divorce” is a necessary component of the socially-accepted and recognized procedure of our culture (just like driving, fishing/hunting and other licenses are required), then we must fulfill the requirements of God’s word to be in compliance to HIS divinely appointed civil authorities (powers that be).
I could just as easily ask you to “please cite the scripture” for the requirement to have a driving license to drive, or a fishing/hunting license to fish or hunt. What about a license to practice medicine? The SAME scriptures which require compliance with the civil mandates to obtain any of those other civil licenses for participation in those things, require civil licenses for marriage/divorce as well. If you were to be consistent in your reasoning, then you would have to deny the need for ALL such required licenses.>
The certificate of divorce was not a “license” to divorce, Jeff, but a “certificate” of what had happened. Let that sink in, friend. You started your argument off on a false platform comparing apples to who knows what. You need a license to drive, fish, hunt, but the license is not driving, fishing or hunting. Those are before you do such. A certificate is after you have done something. If I apply for a hunting license, I cannot boast that I am a hunter if I never went out on the field to hunt anything. Your faulty understanding makes the piece of paper the action being done! The sending away is not in a written license from man, but is a written license from God (Matt. 19:9)!
I have to wonder if you were in Peter’s vision would you have interrupted the apostle and said, “before you rise and kill, make sure you stop by the local Walmart and apply for a valid hunting license” (Acts 10:13). LAUGH and LIGTHEN UP, then repent and mourn. Do I teach that we should not have driving, fishing, hunting, medical or marriage licenses? No. But again, they do not make the action being done.
Wallace’s Question # 7) While I am asking questions, I will throw this one in there perhaps for my own future-personal use. Does God hate each and every single divorce? Please give references?
<Belknap’s Answer To Question # 7) God does not hate every divorce. God hates wrongfuldivorces, such as when one is “dealing treacherously” with their divinely obligated spouse as per Malachi 2:14-16. Although He is not pleased when a lawful divorce transpires, it is only because the sin of fornication has caused the break-up of a lawful marriage. Moreover, God is in fact well-pleased with the divorces of those who are involved in adulterous marriages, as evidence of fruits worthy of repentance.>
To which I agree!
Cordially,
Steven J. Wallace
|