The following exchange took place on a discussion Internet list involving a brother who teaches New Testament Greek. The exchange focused on "against her" in Mark 10: 11. As noted in the following, some are attempting to use Mark 10: 11 in such a fashion as to conclude that a put away innocent person may later put away and marry another, even in cases of post divorce fornication. In fact, if Jesus had in mind in Mark 10: 11 to approve of the just mentioned scenario, then such would of necessity involve post divorce fornication. I have changed the names of the participants, for the most part, so the reader will concentrate on what is being said as opposed to the author. The material presents a concise, but complete study of the issues involving Mark 10: 11.

Don Martin to Ray Stevens:

Ray, as I recall, you will be out of town for a few more days, but I thought I would could ahead and reply now while I am between projects.

Ray wrote:

Don, I see you affirm that you do indeed believe the translation of Mark 10:11 found uniformly in the standard versions is probably wrong. You are affirming that where the English translations say, "commits adultery against her," (generally understood to be the 1st woman) it should say, "commits adultery with her." (meaning the 2nd woman).

Don responds:

What you say above is basically accurate, Ray. Thank you for correctly representing me.

Ray continues:

The challenge for you is to produce one passage where EPI with acc. Means "with" in this sense.

Don answers:

Ray, in my original article titled, "Mark 10: 11, 12 and the Innocent Put Away Mate" I wrote:

"...Another view of epi auten is that the meaning of the preposition epi with the accusative is simply 'with her.' The proposition epi when used in association with the accusative case has the potential for a number of renderings. Thayer, for instance, mentions in general the idea of 'in reference to' and 'towards' (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, pg. 235, 236). Marshall thus renders Mark 10: 11, 'And he says to them: Whoever dismisses the wife of him and marries another, commits adultery with her' (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament)....."

Epi has the potential for meaning "with" or "with respect to." The question is what is the predominate nuance or shade in a given occurrence and usage. In view of Matthew 5:32 and 19: 9, I believe epi in Mark 10: 11, 12 means "with" her.

Ray continues:

Don, my concern is this: A brief look at a couple of things you have written (e.g., your article online at www.jeffbelknap.com) make it clear that you are looking at Mark 10:10-12 through the prism of your views on a currently hotly debated issue.

Don responds:

You make a good point and such is a common danger that all face. However, I do not think your observation is correct. I could counter and say the same thing about you. After all is said, though, it comes back to if a word has the resident potential for "with" and if it is used in syntax that influences the "with" potential and rendering, why is it so bad to understand epi as "with"?

Ray further explains:

Some of you who take a particular view of marriage and divorce seem to believe that your doctrine falls apart if Mark 10:11 is translated as it is in all the standard versions (ASV, KJV, NAS, NKJB, NIV, RSV, NRSV , NLT and ESV). If this is the reason for your diligent attempts to find a rationale for translating the passage differently, you are getting your cart ahead of your horse; you are letting your presupposed doctrine tell you what the text should say. I don't know that your civil procedure view stands or falls with Mark 10:11, but some of you seem to believe it does. If the text refutes your doctrine, let it fall. Don't let your doctrinal needs be the rationale for your claims about how the Bible should have been translated.

Don responds:

Ray, I have stated on a number of occasions that I really do not think Mark 10: 11, 12 is the pivotal text that makes or breaks, either doctrine. I am referring to the doctrine that the innocent put away mate may put away and marry another even in cases of post divorce fornication or the view such as I hold that there is no provision for a "second putting away" or for post divorce fornication enabling the innocent put away to put away. I, therefore, do not have the vested interest in forcing a verse to mean something that it may not mean that you seem to think I have. I, frankly, am a little disappointed in your view of my grammar abilities and linguistic integrity. I consider what you have said as one of the worse insults I have had all week, maybe all day, perhaps the last hour, for sure.

I have been very vocal as to my understanding of such verses as Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9. However, I do not recall reading any material by you that I considered decisive as to your understanding.

Ray, do you believe the above verses allow an innocent put away mate to put away and marry another? How about in cases of post putting away fornication on the part of the putting away mate, do you believe the innocent put away may then put away and marry another? I would be interested in reading a straight forward reply from you in a reply post on list.

Ray Stevens to Don Martin and the list:

For the sake of all, let me offer an OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE and RECAP of WHAT HAS BEEN SAID:

Mark 10:11 (ASV) "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her."

The KJV, NAS, NKJB, NIV, RSV, NRSV , NLT and ESV all translate the phrase EP' AUTHN ("against her") in a manner similar to what we see in the ASV, and of course, it is generally understood that "against her" means "against the first wife".

However, some feel that it is necessary to reject the usual translation and affirm that Jesus meant "with her" in order to sustain their civil procedure view of marriage and divorce. They claim that the text should be understood to say, "commits adultery with her," meaning the 2nd woman, where the English translations say, "commits adultery against her," generally understood to be the 1st woman.

I don't think I've seen anyone spell out why they see the traditional rendering as a problem for their doctrine, but I think the problem they have must be this: The traditional rendering suggests the man continues to be joined to his first wife even after he puts her away because the text says he commits adultery against her when he marries another. After all, how is he committing adultery against her if he is no longer hers in the eyes of God? And if he is still hers in the eyes of God, the advocates of the civil procedure doctrine seem to see that as a problem, apparently because they view the action of the court (the civil procedure) as definitive. They seem to feel that if the court says a man and woman are divorced, then they are no longer joined to one another in the eyes of God. The best I can tell, I think that's the gist of the difficulty these brethren feel. On the other hand, if Jesus didn't say the man commits adultery against his first wife, but instead said the man commits adultery with the second woman, then the problem goes away, or so they seem to think.

Though Don says he does not believe Mark 10:11 is "the break position text," in other words, he believes he can sustain his position regarding marriage and divorce regardless of what Mark 10:11 means, he nonetheless defends the idea that it should say "with her."

The identity of the "her" will simply be a function of which rendering of EPI is correct; if "with," then it's the second woman, if "against," then it's the first woman. Hence the question boils down to this: Should EPI be translated "against" in Mark 10:11, or should it be translated "with"?

In fact, as Jack Smith noted previously, the fundamental meaning of EPI is "upon." In an adversarial context, someone can do something upon someone so as to do it "against" him. In English, we speak of "perpetrating a fraud upon the public." Clearly, there is an adversarial connotation there. The same thing is sometimes true of the use of the Greek EPI when used with the accusative case. In adversarial contexts, English translations will often represent EPI by means of the English word "against." See the following examples:

Lk. 9:5 a testimony against (EPI) them
2 Cor. 10:2 to be bold against (EPI) some

We see this several times in Mark:

Mk. 3:24 kingdom divided against (EPI) itself
Mk. 3:25 house divided against (EPI) itself
Mk. 3:26 Satan rises up against (EPI) himself
Mk. 13:8 nation against nation kingdom against (EPI) kingdom
Mk. 13:12 children rise up against (EPI) parents
Mk. 14:48 come out as against (EPI) a robber

Notice that in all of these passages, we could say "upon" rather than "against." To be sure, in some of them, "upon" would sound a bit awkward (and therefore quite naturally, we prefer "against" in English). Nonetheless, the fundamental meaning of EPI is not abandoned. The basic meaning of EPI is "upon," and all nuances as flavored by its use with various cases in various contexts grow out of this idea. As A.T. Robertson said of EPI,

"Sometimes indeed in the causal and ethical usages the root-idea seems dim, but none the less it is there. The only safety consists in holding on to the root-idea and working out from that in each special context. (A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 600)

What we do not see anywhere in the New Testament is EPI with the accusative being used of someone doing something "upon" another such that we might represent the idea in English by saying the one did it "with" another. In fact, I don't know of any place anywhere, in the New Testament or elsewhere, where EPI with the accusative is used in the sense that Don alleges. If Don knows of any passage, New Testament or otherwise, where EPI with the accusative means what he alleges, I would be very interested in learning about it.

NOW TO DON'S MOST RECENT ON THIS THREAD...

Don, in your last post addressed to me, you wrote, "I, frankly, am a little disappointed in your view of my grammar abilities and linguistic integrity."

Please, let's not make this a discussion about "grammar abilities." This is a discussion about the facts. If there is a passage that provides evidence for the meaning you allege, please produce it. Please, simply give us a passage where EPI with accusative means "with" in the sense you have proposed.

I do not fault you for finding fault with the standard translations. I only ask for evidence supporting your claim.

Maurice Barnett referred us to Nigel Turner's effort to establish precedent for this meaning in a passage in the Septuagint. I believe I have shown the mistake in Turner's reasoning. Then, brother Barnett did what Nigel Turner did not do - brother Barnett offered New Testament passages where he supposed his case could be made. There was a reason Turner did not appeal to those New Testament passages - they don't get the job done.

I am reluctant to comment on your reference to Thayer lest you lose sight of my point, namely, that you need to give us a passage where EPI with acc. is shown to mean "with." However, inasmuch as your post left the impression that Thayer supported your view, it should be noted that he did not. Thayer specifically cited Mk. 10:11 as an example of EPI having the connotation, "against" (see under EPI, C.I.2.g.gamma.doublebeta).

You wrote:

"Ray, do you believe the above verses allow an innocent put away mate to put away and marry another? How about in cases of post putting away fornication on the part of the putting away mate, do you believe the innocent put away may then put away and marry another?"

Once again, you are getting the cart ahead of the horse. I asked you for a passage demonstrating that EPI with accusative can mean "with" but you offered none. Instead, you want to discuss the implications of the passage with reference to various scenarios. Let's first come to an understanding of what the text says before we start debating what bearing it may have on various scenarios. Otherwise, this discussion will be no more fruitful than the one I have with my good Baptist neighbor who wants to discuss the implications of Acts 2:38 with respect to forgiveness of sins, but doesn't want me to question his assertion that Peter really meant "be baptized "because of" the forgiveness of your sins." The subject line is "Mk. 10:11 'sin AGAINST' the first wife?" Let's get that resolved before we start another subject.

Don Martin to Ray Stevens and the list:

Thanks, Ray, for the reply. However, you did not answer my question. I have answered a number of your questions pertaining to Mark 10: 11, 12 and I asked you one, but you did not answer it. I have also clearly supplied my position on the put away innocent mate, even in cases of post divorce fornication. But you say you do not want to now reveal your position.

Ray wrote, first quoting me:

"Ray, do you believe the above verses allow an innocent put away mate to put away and marry another? How about in cases of post putting away fornication on the part of the putting away mate, do you believe the innocent put away may then put away and marry another?"

Ray wrote: Once again, you are getting the cart ahead of the horse.... Let's get that resolved before we start another subject.

Don comments:

This is not another subject, Ray. I want to see if you have any possible special interest. You have accused me repeatedly of having special interest and perhaps bias in my statement that I think Mark 10: 11 can be rendered "with her." Why will you not simply state your position as I have done? I find this rather interesting, Ray, I again ask you the above question.

Ray wrote:

However, some feel that it is necessary to reject the usual translation and affirm that Jesus meant "with her" in order to sustain their civil procedure view of marriage and divorce.

Don comments:

Ray, you do not list me in the above group per se and I appreciate this. I have over and over stated that I do not see "against her" as posing any doctrinal problem to my understanding of Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9 pertaining to the innocent put away mate not being able to subsequently put away and marry another.

Ray wrote:

In fact, as Jack Smith noted previously, the fundamental meaning of EPI is "upon."

Ray continued:

I do not fault you for finding fault with the standard translations. I only ask for evidence supporting your claim.

Don replies:

Ray, I have not denied most of what you have affirmed about the preposition epi in Mark 10: 11. However, this is concisely what I have said and the point I continue to make:

(1). Epi has a range of possible nuances and meanings, including "with a view to" or "with."

(2). In view of Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9, verses that I view as supplying remote impetus on how epi is translated in Mark 10: 11, I believe epi in the syntax of Mark 10: 11 has the meaning of "with." The antecedent of the action would be the second wife, just as in related stated teaching. I say this because the normal antecedent of "her" is the woman whom he married, not the put away woman. In order to introduce the abnormal antecedent circumstance, one must show some syntactical need. I do not see any such need. Therefore, based on epi having the potential of "with" and the syntax of Mark 10: 11, I prefer epi be rendered "with," referring to the natural antecedent, the second woman and not "against her," referring to the first woman.

Ray, I really do not see the big problem that you seem to see. Epi has the capability, the remote texts lend themselves to "with," and the syntax of the verse indicates "with," alluding to the second wife.

Even if epi has the primary thrust of "upon" (I am not really denying or affirming this) and is never else where used with the accented nuance of "with," such does not preclude the "with" circumstance in Mark 10: 11.

Once again, I really do not see all the big to do about "against" and "with" regarding epi in Mark 10: 11, anyway, as far as the MDR issue.

Fact: The innocent can be put away (such is not right, Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9).

Fact: The put away person is no where presented as subsequently putting away, even after the husband of the put away marries another; hence, clearly committing fornication (Matt. 19: 9).

Fact: Just because there remains a stated bond in the case of unscriptural putting away does not mean that the existing act of putting away is non-existent, as some brethren are teaching.

Ray, I shall be watching for the answer to my question.

Don Martin to the list (post one of two):

When I am studying a matter that is on some level of complexity, I learned a long time ago to assemble all the possible views relative to the subject. After I have all the views of which I am aware gathered, I then consider them as to plausibility. Always, the view that appears to be what the writer is saying in a given verse, in this case, and is the freest of either immediate or remote problems (problems from other texts) is the view of choice.

I saw a while back that those who hold that the innocent put away mate may put away and marry another were migrating toward Mark 10: 11. I also knew how many of them would be abusing the verse in an effort to make it offer justification of their view regarding a put away being able to put away and marry another.

Let us revisit Mark 10: 11, the King James and the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament:

"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her."

"And he says to them: Whoever dismisses the wife of him and marries another, commits adultery with her."

In trying to teach Greek through the years, I have found some of the greatest challenge in teaching Greek prepositions. In some ways, prepositions are extended adverbs, in that they can modify verbs and provide such information as when and where. In addition to the function of adverbs, prepositions can show how the verb in a given syntax connects to various stated matters or objects. Grammarian Daniel Wallace wrote:

"The realities expressed by such connections are, at times, breathtaking" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. 356). Wallace continued, "A proper understanding of prepositions is vital to exegesis. Many an exegetical debate has turned on the use of a particular preposition" (Ibid. pg. 357). Regarding the frequency of prepositions in the Greek text, we are told that four out of five verses contain at least one preposition. There are an estimated 10, 384 Greek prepositions, not including "improper" prepositions, those that cannot be prefixed to a verb!

Greek propositions can also govern a noun. Some prepositions in various case scenarios can be a little hard to pin down, as to the exact action. Context is always a main consideration in the determination of a particular nuance or shade. The preposition epi (translated "against" and "with" above) has several possible nuances. Thayer's work is a simple illustration of the range of meaning of which epi is capable (pg. 231-236, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). Regarding epi with the accusative case (the instance found in Mark 10: 11), Thayer has numerous points. "Above," "over," and "upon" is a nuance that is common in a range of case combinations. Regarding epi in the accusative case, "in reference to" is mentioned by Thayer (pg. 235). "About" and "towards" are also mentioned. Under "D. In Composition epi denotes" (pg. 236), Thayer mentions "towards or to anything," "influence upon or over any person or thing," and "against." Again, the particular shade must be determined by a given instance of usage, paying special attention to syntax and context.

Regarding the building controversy relative to Mark 10: 11, it all is reduced down to whether epi in the accusative means "against" and if "against," what is involved or "with" (all of this is simply stated with a mixed readership in mind). Those who say it must be translated "against" obviously have as their main thrust the argument that "against her" (KJV and most standard translations) refers to the first woman, the put away woman and cannot refer to the second woman, the one whom he marries. Their rationale is that if even after divorcement or putting away has occurred, the man commits adultery against his first wife, she, the innocent put away woman, may then put away the man based on the adultery he committed when he married another. "Since he sinned against her when he married another," the argument goes, "she has the right to then act upon the liberty Jesus gave to the innocent mate to put away for the cause of fornication." The salient thing about all this viewing Mark 10: 11 as the bastion or proof text to support a put away putting away is that it necessarily involves those so understanding Mark 10: 11 in taking the post divorce fornication position, a stance that many of these men have tried to avoid, until now.

In my next post, I shall attempt to very simply present the main explanations that are offered regarding the meaning of epi auten ("against her;" "with her") in Mark 10: 11.

Don Martin to the list (post two of two):

Let us now consider some of the main views regarding the meaning of epi auten ("Against her"/"with her") in Mark 10: 11. I shall list these views in basically the order I think they should be placed relative to plausibility and freedom of difficulty.

(1). Epi auten in Mark 10: 11 simply means "with her" and the "her" is the second woman, the one whom he marries. This is because epi is capable of the "with" meaning (cp. Heb. 8: 8) and the natural antecedent of "her" is the woman he marries, not the remote antecedent, the put away woman. The grammar and syntax allow and require such an understanding in the absence of any in placed influence toward not so viewing the expression epi auten (there is no such influence present). Thus understanding epi in Mark 10: 11 ("with") harmonizes smoothly with Jesus' remote "parallel" context in Matthew 19: 9, teaching in which Jesus said such a man who unlawfully divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery with her. Such a treatment of epi in Mark 10: 11, viewing the "her" as the second woman, also agrees with the action of the linked verse ("and," kai) verse 12. Viewing epi as "with" and referring to the immediate antecedent, the second wife, also does not force one to spiritualize "adultery." I say this because if we force the "her" to be the first woman, then the adultery would have to be against her in a spiritual way because he is now cohabiting with the second woman. Again, there is no indication that Jesus meant to use "adultery" spiritually and not in its normal physical sense, especially in usage pertaining to marriage, divorce, and marriage to another.

2. If one insists on a more complicated meaning be assigned to epi in the accusative case in Mark 10: 11, then "against" would be the preferred meaning. In this instance, the predominate thought would be that the man under consideration commits hostile action that is against the woman whom he marries because he is involving her in a sinful, adulterous relationship.

"Epi cannot mean 'against' in the explanation just supplied because it would mean that Jesus limits the third party, the woman he marries, to also having a marital bond with another," some protest. "This is the case because moichatai (adultery) is used." Using this rationale, the person who marries a put away person, whether guilty or innocent of fornication, must be one with a bond to another, based on Matthew 5: 32, and 19: 9. I suppose it is also permissible to stare at a woman to lust after her if one is not married to another (cp. Matt. 5: 28). The truth of the matter, I am convinced, is porneia and moichatai are often synonymously and inclusively used. Regarding the noun moichos (adulterer, adulterous, and adultery) Vine says, "Denotes one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another...." And, pertaining to porneia (fornication), "In Matt. 5: 32 and 19: 9 it stands for, or includes adultery" (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, pg. 32, 33; 125). Having said this, I freely admit that porneia does seem to in a special sense apply to the conjugal act between two unmarried people and even include homosexual acts (I Cor. 7: 2ff., Jude 7).

3. Epi is to be translated "against" in Mark 10: 11 and is to be understood as referring to the first woman, the put away woman. Even though there has been a severance of the marriage, the bond is still in place and when the man marries another, he commits adultery and this adultery is a hostile act that is against his first wife. The first problem with this view is it ignores the understood antecedent and must spiritualize adultery. This is a problem that offers valid evidence opposed so understanding epi in Mark 10: 11.

Those who take view "3" are divided into two camps. Some who hold this "forced" view maintain that to thus "commit adultery against" his first wife does not provide her with an opportunity as the put away person to now (with his act) put him away in view of his adultery. They correctly state that Jesus precluded post divorce adultery or fornication and that fornication must be the cause and not the effect of divorce (there is only one act of putting away recognized and it may or may not involve fornication, notice that I did not say "accepted." To put away for any cause other than fornication is a sin, Matt. 5: 32).

Others are saying that "commits adultery against" is referring to the first wife and shows the bond is still in place; thus, allowing the innocent mate to then put away. Out of all the possible tenet classifications, it is this group that proposes the greatest problems. In effect, they are rejecting Jesus' plain teaching in Matthew 19: 9 that precludes any put away person from putting away and excludes post divorce fornication; thus, preventing any and all waiting game doctrines.

Until now, those who are contending that a put away person may put away and marry another have been themselves divided into two groups; those who say the fornication must be committed by the putting away mate BEFORE the divorcement and those who maintain fornication can either be BEFORE or even AFTER the divorce or putting away act. With more now migrating toward this last understanding of Mark 10: 11, they will all be forced into accepting post divorce fornication.

As to the three above views and treatments of epi in Mark 10: 11, I think the matter of plausibility, respectively considered, is evident. Always, the student of the scriptures when studying matters involving some difficulty wants to arrive at an understanding that is what the writer or speaker had in mind and accept word meanings that are congruous with the setting it which the word or words appear. This is the science of semantics. When we depart from the obvious and accept the problematic, we have already incurred serious consequences that can eventuate in more serious consequences and doctrinal complications down the line. There is no way of predicting all the doctrinal change and re-thinking of different scriptures this "the put away may put away and marry another" doctrine is going to produce as they strive to find some semblance of biblical justification!

Don Martin to Ray Stevens and the list (the following post was made after Ray concluded his part in the exchange):

I believe when asked regarding a position, a Christian, especially a preacher should forthrightly provide a straight forward and unambiguous answer (cp. I Pet. 3: 15). In actuality, I cannot imagine other wise.

Before I say more, Ray, did you write the following?

"Consider the case of a man named Dick who is married to Jane. Dick is a faithful husband, but Jane tires of the marriage and asks for a divorce. Dick refuses to give her a divorce and instead works ever more diligently to make the marriage work. Nonetheless, Jane goes to a lawyer, sues for divorce, and gets a judge to grant her the divorce.Dick at no time consents to this. Subsequently, Jane has a sexual relationship with another man. Can Dick put Jane away and remarry?

'Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.' It seems to me we have to answer these questions:

(1) Is she Dick's wife in the scriptural sense of the term?

(2) Has she committed fornication?

(3) Can he put her away for fornication?

It seems to me that if the answer to all of these questions is yes, I have no right to stand in judgment of Dick if he remarries."

Don comments:

Ray, I want to have my facts straight, that is why I am asking if you stated the above. The list and I shall await your answer.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Don Martin to the list:

A few days ago, I submitted a question for Ray Stevens. It was a question concerning which I was confused. Here is what I asked Ray and concerning which he has now said that he wrote the material.

Ray wrote:

"Consider the case of a man named Dick who is married to Jane. Dick is a faithful husband, but Jane tires of the marriage and asks for a divorce. Dick refuses to give her a divorce and instead works ever more diligently to make the marriage work. Nonetheless, Jane goes to a lawyer, sues for divorce, and gets a judge to grant her the divorce.Dick at no time consents to this. Subsequently, Jane has a sexual relationship with another man. Can Dick put Jane away and remarry?

'Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.' It seems to me we have to answer these questions:

(1) Is she Dick's wife in the scriptural sense of the term?

(2) Has she committed fornication?

(3) Can he put her away for fornication?

It seems to me that if the answer to all of these questions is yes, I have no right to stand in judgment of Dick if he remarries."

Don comments:

In the above scenario, there are a number of clear facts:

(1). Dick was put away by Jane (Jane said she was going to put him away, he offered no resistance, Jane went through the legal system and obtained a civil document while Dick was passive).

(2). Following the divorce (declaration, repudiation, and civil conformity), Jane commits fornication.

(3). Dick, then himself already a put away person, puts away Jane.

(4). Dick later marries another woman.

Regarding the above sequence of events, Ray approves and does not offer any opposition. Ray, then, has a put away person putting away and this is based on post divorce fornication.

Don continues:

The matter that really has me confused is what Ray answered to an essentially the same circumstance as the one just mentioned this week in his exchange with Maurice Barnett. Let me show you what I mean.

From the Barnett/Smelser debate:

Ray Stevens wrote:

"Brother Barnett wants me to answer two questions. He writes:

'I want brother Smelser to remember the two questions I asked him to answer. (1) Is it your position that after a man's unlawful remarriage that his divorced wife can then "put him away" and remarry with God's approval?'

My response: No."

Don observes:

Notice, Ray said, "no."

If the answer to the above is "no," then how could "Dick" put away "Jane" after her unlawful remarriage and then Dick be able to marry another? I do not get it.

I am not out to embarrass Ray Stevens, but truth is consistent. Ray said Dick could put away and marry another even in the case of post divorce fornication; so, why cannot another do the same thing?

One thing that early on impressed me about the Bible is its consistent and static teaching. The truths enunciated in such verses as Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9 are not situational, flexible, and elastic. What applies to Dick and Jane applies to Joe and Ann in the same circumstances. Truth is consistent but error is not.

Ray may try to explain the above inconsistency by emotionally expostulating. Emotions, though, and appeals to fairness do not negate the truth. I would also answer the immediately above with a "no," but you do not find any teaching emanating from me such as Dick and Jane and Dick as a put away person being able to put away and then after Jane's post divorce fornication, Dick being able to marry another.

Ray may reason, "But in my answer, 'no' I had in mind a "divorced wife" who really did not try hard enough to convince him not to put her away." However, the question is straight forward and offers no room room for circumstantial pleas and exceptions and the answer "no" accepts this absence of provision.

We must be consistent in our teaching and if we have the truth, we will be. People, Ray and the list, are looking to Christians and especially preachers to tell them truths that are universal and static, not floating around and simply circumstantial.

But, wait, Ray has an explanation for his apparent inconsistency (I am afraid the answer is worse than the inconsistency).

Please see post two.

Don Martin to the list (post two of three):

Ray Stevens has acknowledged that he provided the example of Dick and Jane, a case where he approved of Dick, who was a put away person, later putting away Jane and being able to marry another in the case of post divorce fornication on the part of Jane. Yet, he just this week answered Maurice Barnett:

Ray wrote:

"Brother Barnett wants me to answer two questions. He writes:

'I want brother Smelser to remember the two questions I asked him to answer. (1) Is it your position that after a man's unlawful remarriage that his divorced wife can then "put him away" and remarry with God's approval?'

My response: No."

I have called on Ray to tell us how he can so inconsistently apply Bible truths that condone one case (Dick and Jane) of a put away putting away and marrying another in the circumstance of post divorce fornication.

Ray responded, first commenting to Ethan Johnson, who also wanted an answer from Ray:

"Now to Ethan,

It seems there is suddenly a lot of interest on the part of a number of people in what I think."

Don comments:

We are interested, Ray and the list, because there is an obvious inconsistency on your part, not just a minor matter but a blatant irreconcilable incongruity that in one case says adultery is not adultery and in another same circumstance says adultery is adultery. This is serious.

Ray continues:

"In my attempts to challenge some sloppy (and conclusion oriented) exegesis I have rankled some who now hope to stir up trouble for me. Their tactics are reminiscent of the questions asked by the Pharisees and Sadducees in Mt. 22. Jesus said the Sadducees erred, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. But they weren't really interested in either. They were only interested in their scenario, and in reality, even that was only of interest to them because of their hope to put Jesus in a bad light.

Don comments:

My, my, Ray, must we be so mean spirited? I want to see the truth taught and I have every right to question your inconsistency without being labeled a "Pharisee, Sadducee, trouble maker, and presenter of sloppy exegesis" (I suppose you mean me since I am the one who is questioning you).

Ray wrote:

"But in comparing my statements on this list and in other venues with a response I recently made to Maurice Barnett who asked about a particular scenario, someone might suppose he finds opportunity to expose a contradiction in what I have said. If someone hopes to find contradictions in my remarks over time and works diligently enough at searching for such, he will probably succeed. But if Don is hoping to accomplish such at this present time, I think he will fail. What he has succeeded in doing is in forcing me to publicly comment on something I would have preferred not to discuss publicly. It involves a circumstance about which I am not at all certain, and I do not wish to put troublesome thoughts in the minds of others unnecessarily."

Don comments:

Ray is a big boy and challenged me in what I taught. I had an exchange with Ray on Mark 10: 11 and at the same time, Ray had an exchange with Maurice Barnett on the same subject. No one twisted Ray's arm. In fact, as I recall it was he would challenged teaching by Maurice and me. Now, it seems, Ray simply wants to silently withdraw.

Ray continues:

"Don's question comes on the heels of my having been asked by another "Is it your position that after a man's unlawful remarriage that his divorced wife can then 'put him away' and remarry with God's approval?" I replied, "No." It is in comparing that response with many of my posts here on mars-list, including the one from which Don has posted an excerpt, that one who hopes to find a contradiction might think he has found one, though there is none."

Don remarks:

Error contains many contradictions. Again, my aim is to emphasize the contradictions of error and not simply of Ray Stevens.

I am sorry that Ray seems to have a number of uncertainties that I believe are certain. I can now see why Ray had so much trouble with what I have taught on the subject of marriage, divorce, and marriage to another.

Please see post three.

Don Martin to the list (post three of three):

Ray now introduces serious doubt about a woman even being able to put away her adulterous husband, this seems to be why he answered, "no" to Maurice Barnett's question:

Ray wrote:

The best I can tell, I think a man has a right to put away a wife for fornication. But it is remarkable that in all the NT discussion about divorce, there is only one passage that suggests a man has the right to put away a wife in the event of fornication. I know - someone will say, "How many passages do you need?" I only need one, but if it is such a significant thing (and it seems to me it is) and if it is not mentioned in other passages where it might well seem it could have been mentioned, I find myself wondering if I have wrongly understood that one passage. So the question is not, is one passage enough, but rather, do I even have one passage.

Don reflects:

In about 40 years of dealing with a range of what I believe are false doctrines, I have noticed one thing: The proponent is often not really sure of anything except those who are sure, are wrong.

Ray goes on:

In 1988 and 1989, I spent a lot of time studying the various attempts to explain Mt. 19:9 as not allowing a right to put away and remarry. I found all of them wanting. My discussion of the passage and the various efforts to explain away the exception clause was published as chapter 5 in _Is it Lawful, a Comprehensive Study of Divorce_. Since then, I have had occasion to revisit this question as new thoughts are presented to me, one of which has given me pause. At this point, the best I can do is say that it seems to me the case I made in Is It Lawful, a Comprehensive Study of Divorce is right....

Regarding the right of a woman to put away an unfaithful husband and remarry, I am less confident. I would put this in the category of things I'm just not sure about at all.

Don comments:

I noticed in my exchange on Mark 10: 11 with Ray that he seems to shy away from Jesus' teaching in verse 12, teaching that clearly grants to the innocent woman the right to put away her husband who is guilty of fornication (cp. Matt. 19: 9). Now, I see why Ray backed off from verse 12. I knew there were beliefs on Ray's part that never surfaced, yet, beliefs that prevented Ray from accepting the totality of Jesus' teaching in Mark 10: 11, 12.

Ray concluded:

I got said what I wanted to say in my exchange with Maurice and was hoping to be able to set that topic aside for a time. But before that exchange was complete, I became involved (by my choice) in a discussion of the same topic here on this list. Now I have put too many hours into this of late and I need to get some other things done. With that, I hope to take a respite from this discussion.

Don also concludes:

Ray, I have a number of mixed emotions regarding you. However, above all emotions, I must be concerned about the truth. In view of your acknowledged "Dick and Jane" example, you have a put away person putting away and being able to marry another in the case of post divorce fornication. Notwithstanding, you provided a "no" answer to a straight forward question that prevents the put away from putting away and excludes the circumstance of post divorce fornication allowing marriage to another.

You, if I am understanding you, answered the following question, "no" not because you respect Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19: 9 that forbids a put away person, whether guilty or innocent of fornication, being able to put away and not because you are against post divorce fornication, etc., but because the example has a woman putting away and you do not believe a woman may put away, not even based on fornication.

"Brother Barnett wants me to answer two questions. He writes:

'I want brother Smelser to remember the two questions I asked him to answer. (1) Is it your position that after a man's unlawful remarriage that his divorced wife can then "put him away" and remarry with God's approval?

My response: No."

Don responds:

Yet, in your above explanations, you say you really are not sure about a woman being able to put away a guilty husband, whether she can or cannot. But you answered an emphatic, "no" to the above question, based on your uncertainty. Ray, I am really confused.

Ray, I know you resent me thus posting and applying heat to you. However, be assured that I am your friend. As a friend, I must tell you that your teaching on MDR is inconsistent and, therefore, erroneous. When it all boils down, you are not sure about a lot of things; however, you lack no timidity in attacking fellows such as Maurice Barnett who taught the truth. I have never understood how one can be uncertain and yet teach against another with such certainty!

Let me say this, I have been dealing with MDR issues especially since 1972 and I have grown so tired of men speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Such ambiguity and duplicity only complicate the MDR issues and results in further confusion.

Addendum:  My exchange with "Ray Stevens" ended without Ray ever correcting any errors that he taught. It was evident that Ray's scholarship and honesty were damaged by the exchange.