To assist you in your study of the marriage, divorce, and remarriage (MDR) issue, I shall insert the following. The below are sections of a discussion that occurred in 2001, 2002 on an Internet discussion list regarding divorce and remarriage. In view of the origin and nature of this material, it may seem disjointed, there are a number of nuances of the MDR covered. The list has a number of members, a significant percentage of whom are preachers in the church of Christ. I began the discussion by posting on the simple teachings of Jesus relative to divorce and remarriage. "Terry," below, made a post and then the exchange was underway. For the sake of clarity, I shall mostly only insert my posts, which should be self-contained (I shall omit many customary quotation marks).  The second half mostly pertains to the Sheridan/Osborne debate proposition and the teaching of Ron Halbrook.  (For a more complete study of the divorcement issue, click on "Matthew 5: 32 and Matthew 19: 9, a Study" and "Scriptural Divorcement, a Detailed Study.")

Terry…to Don Martin and the list:

Answers are very scattered because of interpretations. Many learned men and women with doctor's degrees, and some less... interpret this issue, and others, quite differently. It is not easy, nor simple and straightforward, as some would indicate. (Terry states regarding divorce and remarriage, dm.)

And, it gets much more complicated when the divorce is "close" to home... i.e., a group of elders having to counsel persons going through it, or when a close family member, like a son or daughter, or brother or sister who lives close, experience it, often when only one party wants the divorce. It generally forces a complete rethinking, restudying, fresh look at the scriptures... usually over and over again for the rest of ones life. Because after the divorce... "Ok, it happened. Now what do I do?..." Can I be forgiven? Because I "sinned," (contributed to the divorce) in some way in process. Grace is a hard thing to accept in the Church of Christ, especially the conservative Church of Christ. Forgiveness of sins is often just as hard to accept. Even if we, as individuals accept a conservative interpretation of the scriptures on MDR, then we usually find ourselves caught in NOT being able to fully accept grace and God's forgiveness as we are also commanded to do.

Cordially,

Terry

Don Martin to the list: (In order for the remarriage to be right, the divorce must be biblical.)

I would like to see some comments on the following scenario and my response to it:

I have been asked the following question: "Don, I intend to go ahead and divorce my wife. I am sure this action will force her into the arms of her boyfriend, at which point she will commit adultery and I can then remarry. What advice do you have as far as this matter is concerned?"

The first time I was asked this was thirty plus years ago in the presence of a well known preacher. The preacher replied by saying, "be sure you have proof of the adultery she will commit so that you can remarry without any doubts."

My reply thirty years ago down to the present has been thus: In order for there to be a subsequent scriptural remarriage, the divorce itself must be implemented because of the adultery of the mate. If the divorce is unscriptural, all remarriage is adulterous. In order for remarriage to be allowed when there is a living "mate," there must of necessity have been a scriptural divorce on the part of the innocent "mate." What think ye? (Matt. 19: 9; 5: 32.)

Cordially,

Don Martin

Don Martin to the list: (Double talk relative to divorce and remarriage.)

I know the MDR has been discussed from time to time on this list. However, J. T. Smith's article in Gospel Truths (Vol. 12, No. 3) calling for Ron Halbrook to give an account for his public teaching versus his private teaching is certainly going to prompt more discussion in general of this perennial and troubling subject that is plaguing our society and the Lord's church.

There is so much ambiguous language involved in the issue that it has often become a challenge talking to others. One member told me, "my first marriage was dissolved because of adultery." I learned I had to pin down people and I then asked for details. Come to find out, he had committed adultery and his wife had divorced him because of HIS adultery. I mentioned this new learned fact to the elders where I was preaching at the time. Their reply was, "Don, we do not see the problem, his marriage was dissolved because of adultery, it really does not matter who committed the adultery. In another case where the "innocent mate" had been put away by the mate herself guilty of adultery, the elders replied, "the putting away action by the guilty mate is transferred to the innocent mate; therefore, the innocent mate really put away the guilty mate because of her adultery."

I recall still another case where adultery and divorce were involved. The "innocent mate" was passive and allowed the mate guilty of adultery to file, pursue, and obtain the divorce degree against him. The elders told him, "you are still allowed remarriage, all you have to do now is repudiate your wife because she did commit adultery." Brethren have the put away putting away, two totally separate putting away actions for the same person, one civil and one spiritual, and one can be put away and some how "repudiate" and be allowed remarriage.

I have found through the years that a number of preachers, elders, and Christians in general will say, as Jesus said, the innocent mate (there can be such a person or Jesus would not have taught as he did) may put away his/her mate that is guilty of fornication because of his/her fornication and be able to subsequently remarry (Matt. 5: 32; 19: 9). However, when application time comes, it is totally a different matter.

I was invited to move and work with a very well know church in Texas back in the eighties. I went and preached for them ("tried out") and the elders asked me to move and work with them. After the Sunday night service, the elders informed me they had a meeting set up with a female member and they wanted me to be involved since I was moving there. It was a marital problem case, it turned out. Her husband wanted a divorce, neither had committed adultery. The elders as one spoke their words of wisdom to this young Christian thus: "Let him divorce you, do not fight or resist it, when he has divorced you, he will shortly remarry. At this point, you can put him away and be free to remarry."

I had presented what I thought was a complete and plain sermon on divorce and remarriage that morning to the church, the elders were in the audience. The elders got up behind me and commended the sermon to the members and said it was the truth. But when application time came........Concerned and intelligent reader, I have never encountered an issue that has so much double talk, esoteric definitions, and inconsistent applications as does the divorce and remarriage issue. Again, what think ye?

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to Terry…and the list: (The sequential teaching of Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9.)

Hello Terry, I do not believe I know you from the list. Thank you for your reply and input. Terry wrote regarding the divorce and remarriage issue as follows (March 15, 2001, Digest 2112):

"And, it gets much more complicated when the divorce is 'close' to home... i.e., a group of elders having to counsel persons going through it, or when a close family member, like a son or daughter, or brother or sister who lives close, experience it, often when only one party wants the divorce. It generally forces a complete rethinking, restudying, fresh look at the scriptures... usually over and over again for the rest of ones life. Because after the divorce... 'Ok, it happened. Now what do I do?...' Can I be forgiven?"

Don answers:

While I myself have never been divorced (same wife for 32 years), I have seen my share of it. I have worked with people in other local churches, the local church where I have been, and in my own family. I have shed tears, pleaded and begged people to do right, and experienced many sleepless nights worrying over couples going through divorce. Close friends have been determined to divorce and have done so. I resigned or withdrew myself from two local works because of tolerated families who were in adultery. This issue has cost me large sums of money in terms of local work income and cancelled meetings. I have been slandered, maligned, and defamed over the MDR issue. I have had two children go through divorce. Believe when I say that I know all about divorcement, both from a doctrinal, emotional, and deprivation standpoint. However, how does all this affect Jesus' teaching?

"32: 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....(Matt. 5, dm)...9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matt. 19).

Observe:

A puts away B and causes her to commit adultery when she remarries. A had no right to divorce his wife (exception phrase not activated). B is placed under a terrible hardship, especially in the First Century. Perhaps she has children that must be fed. Nonetheless, she commits adultery when she remarries. Brethren have created a loophole, however. When A remarries, she may now mentally divorce A and be in a scriptural marriage. This sounds good to many. Now consider Matthew 19: 9:

A puts away B and marries C. A and C are in adultery, Jesus said. Now, B remarries and B and D are in adultery, Jesus said. "Oh, but B and D marry before A marries C," some interject. That is not what Jesus said! The natural sequence is A puts away B and marries C. B (the innocent put away party) then marries D). Result: B and D are in adultery. In debating this issue through the years, brethren have explained to me, when they gave up on denying the irrefutable sequence of the verse, "B must have not mentally put away A when A married C and before she married D." What a desperate attempt to find semblance of authority for the put away putting away!

Concerned reader and list member, one does not need a master's degree to understand the foregoing. What we must have is faith, respect for God's word, and courage to lay aside all our personal feelings, emotions, and self-justification and accept what Jesus taught without compromise. I suppose I am a simple person, but I believe it is just this simple.

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list: (Mental divorcement.)

The doctrine of "mental divorcement" or the act of putting away "in the heart," as some word it, has led to more adulterous marriages in the body of Christ than any doctrine with which I am familiar. People will say, "John scripturally divorced his wife because of her adultery" and what they mean is that John, whose wife divorced him, later mentally divorced his wife.

Weldon Warnock is among the first of whom I am aware who bravely stated this doctrine in writing. I have the following quotations in Bible Truths, the Quotations section. Here is his famous statement and a reply by Connie Adams:

"But someone asks: 'What about a woman who is put away (divorced) by a man simply because the man no longer wanted to be married? Fornication is not involved and the woman repeatedly tried to prevent the divorce, but to no avail. After a couple of years the man marries another woman. Is the 'put way' woman then free to marry?' She certainly is, if she puts away her husband for fornication. She would have to do this before God in purpose of heart since the divorce has already taken place, legally speaking. She could not go through the process of having a legal document charging her husband with 'adultery,' but God would know…" - Weldon E. Warnock (Searching the Scriptures, November issue, 1985).

Reply by Connie Adams: "It is my conviction that there are only three classes of people who have a right to marry: (1) those who have never been married: (2) those whose companions are dead; and (3) those who have put away a companion for the cause of fornication. It appears to me that any attempt to find authority for anyone else to marry, must trade on the silence of the scriptures. I realize that brother Warnock's illustration involves fornication but is after the fact of divorce and not before. It is very difficult for me to see how this is not in reality the 'waiting game' for one waits until the other sins and then claims scriptural cause. I am also made to wonder if we may have the 'mental divorce' then why not at the other end of the marriage have a 'mental marriage' before the fact of social and legal requirements being met. Indeed, is this not the very thing claimed by those who insist that two people may cohabit as long as they have a 'meaningful relationship' and plan to get married anyhow?" - Connie W. Adams (Searching the Scriptures, February issue, 1986).

List members, we must lay aside our double talk and accept the scriptures. Are there two different and separate acts of putting away found in Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9. If so, where are they? Is not the civil act of putting away necessarily "involved" in "putting away?"

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list: (The divorcement issue and emotionalism.)

I personally believe that the reason for the myriad views within the church pertaining to divorce and remarriage is uncontrolled emotionalism, "I feel....!" I shall insert another quotation found in the quotation section of Bible Truths to illustrate such. (I have been going to develop the Quotations section even more but there have been other pressing matters.)

"Suppose a young, innocent girl, 18 years old, marries what she thinks to be a clean, equally innocent young man. He has latent homosexual tendencies of which neither he nor she is aware. After three weeks of marriage, he decides that heterosexual living is not for him. He, therefore, obtains a lawyer and divorces his wife on the ground that 'the marriage is insupportable' - the most frequently used excuse for divorce in Texas and many other states. He deserts his wife. He then forms a homosexual arrangement with another man and lives openly with him adamantly avowing he will never return to an heterosexual life style. According to the proposition signed by Phillips (H.E. Phillips, dm), the girl is forever denied a husband, a home, and children, not because of her own sin, but because of the sin of another. This an extreme position? I do not believe it to be true! It is a human inference (opinion) from the teaching of Jesus that is purely gratuitous…" - James W. Adams (The Gospel Guardian, Vol. 30 no. 13, 1978).

Don comments:

I know James' appeals are attractive. However, how about Jesus' sequence in Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9? "Jesus did not mean for us to understand Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9 in the sense of sequence," we are often told by various preachers, elders, and members. However, we are also told by Baptists, "Jesus did not mean for us to understand Mark 16: 16 in the sense of sequence."

According to Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9 the put away, whether innocent or guilty of fornication, has no right to remarry. Only the innocent mate who divorces his/her mate because of their (the guilty mate) fornication has the right to: (1) divorce and (2) remarry. Is this not the truth?

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list (the following post was made in the setting of the responsibility of churches to "check out" prospective members):

I am not alluding to anyone in particular with the subject line "I am not a detective." However, there is too often the thinking, "I do not know about the marriage of any, I am not going to ask, and I will not listen if I am told."

Many of the problems threatening the identity of the Lord's church today have to do with fellowship issues. Some are attempting to extend the boundaries to include where the Lord did not include and others simply do not want any perimeters at all. Such verses as 2 John 9-11, I John 1: 4-9, and Ephesians 5: 10, 11 are being replaced with "grace accepts all matters, etc."

I have sat in many meetings, as some of you have, regarding prospective members. It is my understanding of the scriptures that prospective members need to ask questions of the local church where they are considering placing membership and elders need to find out about the potential new members before fellowship is extended. I do not recall just coming out of the blue and asking, "have you been married before and if so, what were the circumstances...." However, the matter always has come out in the course of the discussion. One conversation topic that usually prompts such information is we tell people what we teach and practice. Under this topic, divorce and remarriage is mentioned, along with many other matters. In just about all cases, people have volunteered personal information at this time. We, when we sense a little concern on their part, tell the people what they will hear and ask them if they have a problem with such teaching. We have had people to get up and simply walk out and go place membership else where, no questions asked. We also have had a number of people to reveal that they have no scriptural right to be married to one another.

List members, let me ask you a question: If you suspect or find out people are in adultery, do not you have a responsibility to talk and study with them about their souls? This business of "I am not a detective; hence, I do not want to know about people's marriages" remains me of a statement someone made many centuries ago. His name was Cain and he worded the matter thusly, "I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen. 4: 9). This "I do not know about the marriage of any, I am not going to ask, and I will not listen if I am told" is a selfish cop out. Elders, preachers, and members in general who have this attitude are not such as should even be called Christians, to be plain about the matter.

It is no wonder there is so much ignorance regarding divorce and remarriage. It is also no wonder so many local churches are filling up with people who are in unscriptural marriages while self-serving members look the other way. I have found that most people in unscriptural marriages will reveal themselves when there is sound preaching from the pulpit. They cannot stand the truth to be taught on such matters. This is why there are local churches that have not heard detailed sermons on divorce and remarriage in years! The church does not want anyone to leave or upset anybody. Shame, shame, shame.

Cordially,
Don Martin

John …to Don Martin and the list: (Mocking the idea of "checking out" prospective members.)

I have not been divorced, so I'm not in that circumstance. However, my parents were divorced. I always felt intruded upon when people have asked why. It is none of their business. I think it's a fairly personal question to ask people why they were divorced for the following reasons:

1). No Scripture tells you to ask.

2). Nobody can give a true picture, just one side of the story. You still don't know when they tell you.

3). God knows and He will do what is right.

4). If someone has been in the church, then they know the acceptable answer and can just give it to you. You feel ok about it, but if it's not the truth what have you accomplished?

While we're asking personal questions about the 'whys' of their divorce, why not ask them other personal questions:
1). When is the last time you drank alcohol
2). When is the last time you watched an R rated movie
3). When is the last time you masturbated
4). When is the last time you had a lustful thought
5). Have you ever....

This is sounding more like ICC! I put personal questions about divorce in the previous categories...too personal for us to know...and we can't do anything about it if we did know except think less of the person.

If we can find that application for acceptance for membership somewhere, then maybe I'll abide by it!

Cordially,

John

Don Martin to the list: (Those in sin in an unscriptural divorce and remarriage.)

Please consider Jesus' teaching concerning which some have such difficulty understanding and applying:

"32: 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....(Matt. 5, dm)...9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matt. 19).

Jesus said that only the innocent mate has the right to divorce his/her mate for the cause of their adultery and remarry. All other situations involve sin and adultery when there is a remarriage. Those in sin are (making application):

1). The one who divorces for some reason other than adultery.
2). The one who divorces for some reason other than adultery and remarries is in adultery.
3). The person whom he remarries in such a circumstance is in fornication.
4). The wife whom he unscripturally divorced is in adultery when she remarries.
5). The man whom the "wife" remarries is in fornication.
6). The put away mate who is guilty of adultery is in sin when she remarries.
7). The man whom she remarries is in fornication.

Such plain teaching seems too hard to be understood by some. Is it too hard or do we simply do not have the courage to apply it? I personally believe that the only thing that will save a remnant of churches is for elders and preachers to take a firm and uncompromising stand on the divorce and remarriage issue that is destroying this country and is corrupting the Lord's church. What do you think, list members?

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list: (How Jesus used "put away.")

I have shared a number of simple posts with you relative to Jesus' plain teaching on divorce and remarriage.


"32: 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....(Matt. 5, dm)...9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matt. 19).

We have seen the following:

Jesus said that only the innocent mate has the right to divorce his/her mate for the cause of their adultery and remarry. All other situations involve sin and adultery when there is a remarriage. Those in sin are (making application):

1). The one who divorces for some reason other than adultery.
2). The one who divorces for some reason other than adultery and remarries is in adultery.
3). The person whom he remarries in such a circumstance is in fornication.
4). The wife whom he unscripturally divorced is in adultery when she remarries.
5). The man whom the "wife" remarries is in fornication.
6). The put away mate who is guilty of adultery is in sin when she remarries.
7). The man whom she remarries is in fornication.

Don continues:

It seems, though, some brethren just cannot understand who the put away person is. Consider how Jesus used "put away:"

"Put away" is derived from the Greek apoluo. Apoluo is translated "put away" in Matthew 5: 32 (clause A) and "divorced" in clause B (KJV). Apoluo means to let go or let loose (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). Based on this definition, some have erroneously concluded that divorce automatically implies freedom from the marriage bond. Not so. "Divorced" in the King James (Matt. 5: 32) is the one who has been put away, either scripturally or unscripturally.

What constitutes divorcement. Marriage entails intent, making known of such intent, and conformity to all applicable civil laws. I submit divorcement, the opposite of marriage, has no different requirements. We do not read of the concept of mental only marriage and we do not read of mental only divorcement! Put in practical terms, one person does not marry or divorce another privately or simply in ones heart.

The put away does not put away. An increasing number of brethren are adopting the view of the put away putting away in their heart and being able to remarry. Remember that every time the put away is mentioned in the circumstances discussed by Jesus, they are forbidden remarriage. If they remarry, it is adultery. Also remember that the "put away" is both the scripturally put away (based on their adultery) and/or the unscripturally put away (for some case other than adultery). (See Matthew 5: 32; 19: 9).

"The put away is not the one who tries to maintain the marriage but is 'put away,' regardless, the put away is only the one guilty of adultery," some are arguing. Not so. The put away is both the innocent and the adulterer. Brethren are injecting their own definitions. "It is not fair to say the one who attempts to maintain the marriage but is 'put away' by a mean overbearing mate becomes the 'put away' party and is ineligible for remarriage, especially when their mean mate subsequently remarries," we hear. I agree, it is not "fair." Neither was it "fair" for a mean mate to force the innocent mate into remarriage (Matt. 5: 32). However, Jesus said such an innocent mate commits adultery (Matt. 5: 32). Again, no where do we read actual teaching or intimation that a "put away" can scripturally "put away." Such a concept is not biblical. "Oh, but I feel...." This is precisely the problem, some brethren just feel....

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list: (Inconsistencies in application among preachers.)

I could not begin to share with you all the preachers and elders, I shall refer to them as "John" and "Jim," who have said that they believe and teach what the scriptures teach on divorce and remarriage. They have gone further and affirmed that they believe and teach precisely what I do (as shared with you on this list). However, when application time comes, we are in total disagreement as to the application.

For instance: A and B are married. B suddenly wants a divorce. A says, "neither of us have a scriptural right." B says, "I am tired of this marriage and I want out." B finally tells A, "I am going to divorce you." B goes ahead and begins the legal process. Weeks later, A still says, "I do not want the divorce." B obtains the divorce against A on the legal grounds of, "the marriage is insupportable and incompatible." One year later, B marries C. A now marries D, based on the claim that he divorced B because of her adultery.

Martin responds to the foregoing with feelings and sorrow that the home was broken and destroyed by divorce. Martin also sympathizes with A. However, Jesus did use "put away" for the unscripturally put away person and consistently taught that the put away cannot remarry without sin (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). Martin would then attempt to kindly inform A that he was a put away person and, as such, has no scriptural right to "put away" or to subsequently remarry. Martin tells A that adultery is being committed, based on Matthew 5: 32.

"John" and "Jim" tell A, "you have done the right thing. You did in fact, just as Jesus taught, put away B based on and for her adultery. You have every right and it is only fair for you to be married to D and the local church has absolutely no right to cause any problems over your scriptural divorcement regarding B and your remarriage to D!"

Here is the clincher: "John" and "Jim" then come to Martin and say, "you and we sure stand for the truth and we are united in our teaching on Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9.

Concerned reader, I understand how emotions work. A was treated badly by B in the foregoing example. Now, consider this scenario: A and B are married. A decides he wants to be free of the marriage to B. He knows he has no scriptural right to divorce B. Therefore, he begins to abuse, threaten, and mistreat B, short of adultery. After months of such abuse, even physical mistreatment, B is driven from the home. A waits. Lonely and confused, B meets C. B finally obtains a divorce against A on grounds of incompatibility. B then marries C. A is now free to remarry with the approval of many preachers, elders, and local churches.

I believe the just mentioned situation, plus others that could be sited, is why Jesus forbids the "put away" from remarrying. The innocent mate and only the innocent mate has the right to put away the guilty mate because of the guilty mate's adultery. This mate, not one who has already been put way, either scripturally or unscripturally, has the right to remarry. This is what Jesus' taught, all emotions, sense of fair play, and human subjective judgements to the contrary notwithstanding (Matt. 5: 32; 19: 9).

Cordially,
Don Martin

Larry…to Don Martin and the list: (The matter of the wording on the civil document.)

I appreciate the posts of Don Martin and am in agreement with him on nearly everything -- nearly. Don, I would like to ask you concerning some things regarding one of your posts. Understand that in asking, I believe as you do regarding Matt. 19: 9 -- the only reason for divorce and remarriage is sexual immorality and only the innocent mate may scripturally remarry.

My question:

Is it your contention that the divorce must be obtained for the cause of sexual immorality, that the divorce papers must so state, that it is unscriptural to get a divorce for, say, incompatibility but the real reason is sexual immorality that the mate is engaging in or has engaged in?

Cordially,

Larry

Don Martin to Larry… and the list: (Answer to Larry's question.)

"My question: Is it your contention that the divorce must be obtained for the cause of sexual immorality, that the divorce papers must so state, that it is unscriptural to get a divorce for, say, incompatibility but the real reason is sexual immorality that the mate is engaging in or has engaged in?"

Don answers:

Larry, thanks for your kind words and your courteously asked question. Your question is a good one and one that troubles most of us, from time to time. Many of us are old enough to remember when many states in America not only generally allowed but also required an explicit statement for the divorcement on the divorcement document. Alas, such is not often the case today. In some cases in which I have been involved the past twenty years (long after the no-fault divorce practice by states), we have still managed to have a code stated on the document, which, when referenced in the code definition on the back of the document, states adultery for the cause of the marriage dissolution. I have fought for this and have, even to my surprise, obtained it. I realize that the involved states may have been the reason such was accomplished and may not can be done in other states. One thing, though, I have found out that many who obtain divorces do so in the simplest and most inexpensive way possible. In such cases, explicit causes and codes will not appear on the civil document.

Let me now answer Larry's good question: Larry, I am much more comfortable with a stated cause (even in code) on the document than with simply "irreconcilable differences." In some cases where the innocent putting away party did not succeed in obtaining something officially on the document, they have succeeded in having legal papers producing statements and "proof" as to the adultery of the mate whom they put away. What people, especially Christians, need to realize is that they will need some kind of tangible proof. In two cases of divorcement in which I played a part during the past year, they sought and obtained police and official papers implicating their ex-mate in adultery and attached these papers to their documents. Good elders are going to question Christians who have experienced divorcement and remarriage. Such material proof is good to have.

Having said the foregoing, I do not take the position that a divorcement is scripturally invalid just because it has written officially on the document, "divorce granted because of irreconcilable differences" and no further explanation. The matter of adultery can certainly be an "irreconcilable difference."

Larry, thank you and the many others who have followed these posts. I have more I want to make. I also thank those of you who have emailed me privately with words of agreement and encouragement. Those of you who teach and practice the truth have taken a lot of heat because of the divorcement issue. I admire and appreciate you so much! Keep up your stand for truth on this heart breaking issue and also on all matters of truth.

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list: (The rights of the innocent party.)

I have heard a lot of talk about the rights of the innocent party. It is true that the innocent mate has rights, he has the right to put away his/her mate that is guilty of adultery and subsequently remarry. However, some have contented that the rights of the innocent mate are ongoing. To illustrate, they explain that if an innocent mate does not put away his guilty mate and it ends up that she divorces him, he still has some inherit right as the sinned against innocent mate to put away and remarry. This is really interesting, seeing some of these preachers teach against mental divorcement. Here is a case that I encountered a few years ago:

"I want a divorce," said B to A. "I do not want one and, besides, neither of us have the biblical grounds for a divorce," replied A. A few months later, B informs A that she has a boyfriend and she wants a divorce. Two weeks subsequent to this second declaration, B tells A, "I have committed adultery and I demand a divorce, I cannot stand you any longer!" A remains passive. Within a short time, B tells A, "I went ahead and filed for divorce, but I do not have enough money to pay all the legal fees." A provided her with money for her legal expenses and she pursues the divorcement action against him.

Soon, A and B appear in court for the ruling against A. "B," said the judge, "I award you the divorce decree." A then speaks up and says, "Judge, I am divorcing B because she committed adultery." The judge replied, "A, you are out of place, B has sought and obtained the divorce decree against you!"

To make a long story short, I got called into the problem and it ended up that I was the only preacher who had a problem with the case. I told A that he should have taken some action, preferably, he should have put B away based on and for her adultery when he learned she was guilty and that she was determined to see the marriage end. I explained that he was a put away person and, as such, could not put away (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9).

A did a "brotherhood survey" and informed me that I stood alone in my views about his lack of eligibility to put away and remarry without sin. A few days later, one of the perceived strongest preachers in the brotherhood called me about the matter, he had been involved in A's survey. "The innocent put away does not forfeit the right to put away his/her guilty mate. This right is not relinquished just because the guilty mate obtains a civil divorce against the innocent mate," said he (this preacher had the pertinent facts of the case). This preacher was known for his straight down the line teaching against mental divorcement. He taught (teaches) just as I do as to the components or elements of divorce: mental decision, declaration of intent, and compliance to all applicable civil laws, no less than what constitutes the opposite, marriage. "The put away, according to Jesus, is both the scripturally and unscripturally put away," he has written, "and the 'put away' cannot not scripturally put away."

I asked this preacher for whom I had had the most respect, "In the case of A and B, is not A the put away person and, if so, how, then, can A put away B, would not this necessitate a mental divorcement that you have stated is scripturally non-existent?" His reply was, "Don, the innocent mate continues to have the right to divorce, regardless of the actions of the guilty mate." I then pressed him more regarding his replies. He then said, "the divorce action that was performed by the guilty mate is actually transferred by God to the innocent mate; therefore, the innocent mate in the case of A and B did, in every sense of the word, put away his mate because of and for her adultery." "Where is this taught and is this not an inconsistent application of what you have correctly taught for years?" asked I. "Don, the innocent mate has the inherit right to put away the guilty mate," was all that he would repeat.

Yes, the innocent mate has certain rights. As mentioned, he has the right to divorce his guilty mate and remarry without sin. Only he has this right. However, once he becomes the put away mate, he no longer has this right (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). The old argument that the only reason Jesus said the innocent put away committed adultery after she remarried was because she did not mentally put away her husband when he remarried is the height of foolishness and irresponsible exegesis. One would not fail to simply mentally divorce so that one could be free to remarry without sin.

Concerned reader, the truth of the matter is that the scriptures know absolutely nothing about mental divorcement, either in teaching, concept, or practice. Mental divorcement is a man-made doctrine that has caused multitudes to enter and remain in adulterous remarriages.

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list: (The guilty put away remarrying.)

I thank those of you who are following these posts on divorce and remarriage. I could go on forever, as I imagine you are about to wonder if I am. I do want to cover a couple more matters in these posts, though. R. L. Whiteside wrote the following regarding the guilty put away party in a certain circumstance (see the posts below regarding the guilty party can marry another position):

"This problem is stated: A and B, both Christians, marry; A divorces B for fornication. A then marries another wife, who is not a Christian. B also marries, and her husband is a member of the one body. All attend the same congregation, and the three are members in this same congregation. As an elder, what would you do?

Well, what could I do? A evidently had a right to marry again. So far as I know, this may have given B a right to marry also. On that point no one can speak with authority, for nothing is said about it. A safe rule seems to me to be: When in doubt as to what you should do, take the safe side; if you are in doubt as to the conduct of another, give him the benefit of the doubt" - R. L. Whiteside (Gospel Advocate, July 25, 1935).

I have copious material in my marriage, divorce, and remarriage file. Since I am an amateur historian, I naturally collect such matters and I use such material when I am endeavoring to extensively teach on different subjects.

Notice that A put away B because of B's adultery and then A remarries. Whiteside said, "So far as I know, this may have given B a right to marry also." How does Whiteside and others arrive at the conclusion that the put away guilty mate can remarry when the putting away remarries? Listen to Whiteside in his reasoning process (I shall break it down into two natural parts):

(1). Regarding teaching against the put away adulterer remarrying in the specified case, "On that point no one can speak with authority, for nothing is said about it."

(2). In addition, Whiteside reasoned, "When in doubt as to what you should do, take the safe side; if you are in doubt as to the conduct of another, give him the benefit of the doubt."

As to rationale number one, is not Whiteside basing his belief that the guilty put away...is allowed to remarry in view of the "silence of the scriptures?" However, a basic hermeneutic rule that even Whiteside employed on other biblical subjects is, "when a matter is specified, all other matters are eliminated" (loosely worded). For instance, the scriptures specify the human heart as the instrument in praise of God (Eph. 5: 19). Hence, the piano, organ, etc., are excluded. "The New Testament is silent about the piano and organ; therefore, we may use them" argument we know is flawed. Concerned reader, the scriptures specify the fact that the innocent mate who puts away the guilty mate because of their adultery is allowed to remarry. Only he/she is mentioned and all else are presented as in sin when they remarry. Rather than authorize an act, the silence of the scriptures (in the foregoing qualified circumstances) preclude (Heb. 7: 14). Besides, does not "except it be for fornication" in Matthew 19: 9 have the grammatical potential of also applying to the expression "and whoso married her which is put away doeth commit adultery," that is, the guilty put away?

Relative to rationale element number two, please consider how flawed it is. In the first place, as seen, when a matter is specified (the innocent putting away may remarry, etc.), other matters are not allowed (Eph. 5: 19, I realize that dialectically there can be a quibble in my comparison, however, I believe it only to be just that, a quibble). In view of the primary fact just mentioned, there, then, is no argument for "give him the benefit of the doubt." There is no doubt.

In closing this post regarding the guilty put away being allowed remarriage when the innocent putting away remarries, let me remind us of what I have repeatedly said.

Jesus said:

"32: 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....(Matt. 5, dm)...9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matt. 19).

Jesus said that only the innocent mate has the right to divorce his/her mate for the cause of their adultery and remarry. All other situations involve sin and adultery when there is a remarriage. Those in sin are (making application):

1). The one who divorces for some reason other than adultery.
2). The one who divorces for some reason other than adultery and remarries is in adultery.
3). The person whom he remarries in such a circumstance is in fornication.
4). The wife whom he unscripturally divorced is in adultery when she remarries.
5). The man whom the "wife" remarries is in fornication.
6). The put away mate who is guilty of adultery is in sin when she remarries.
7). The man whom she remarries is in fornication.

Cordially,
Don Martin

An Exchange on the Guilty Put Away can Remarry Position:

"32: 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....(Matt. 5, dm)...9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matt. 19).

In debating the guilty put away may marry another doctrine, I believe the main argument in its favor and on which the whole doctrine rests is the "floating exception phrase" contention. Therefore, I shall make a couple of posts pertaining to this matter. By the way, I do plan on preparing a complete grammatical exegesis of Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9 to be published in Bible Truths.

First, let me say that the exception phrase, "saving for the cause of fornication" (parektos logou porneias, Matt. 5: 32) and "except it be for fornication" (me epi porneia, Matt. 19: 9) is of grammatical importance and is part of the syntax of the verses; thus, it impacts the meaning of what is being said. The phrase me epi porneia in Matthew 19: 9 modifies the verb "shall put away." (some grammarians suggest "except it be for fornication"" also modifies "shall marry another." While "except it be for fornication" can grammatically modify "shall marry another," to so apply it seems to be unintelligible, since one would not marry another "except it be for fornication." The phrase occupies an identical relationship, I might add, to the verb "shall put away" and is, therefore, adverbial in usage.

It is significant that in the Greek New Testament, the exception phrase appears in clause A but not in clause B (clause B is "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery"). The proponents of all are eligible for remarriage, even the guilty put away person tell us that the exception phrase is to be understood as part of clause B. Hence, they would have clause B read, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away, except it be for fornication, doth commit adultery." Therefore, the guilty put away person is able to remarry without sin. It must be realized, though, that clause A and B of Matthew 19: 9 while joined by the copulative conjunction "and" (kai), are two separate clauses. Therefore, unless there is expressed reason to assume the exception phrase placed in clause A is germane to clause B, the reader must conclude the phrase is grammatically irrelevant.

Let me suggest two reasons why the exception phrase cannot be placed in clause B. In the first place and on a simpler level, Jesus adds the exception phrase to show that the godly have certain rights in the matter of putting away and being able to subsequently remarry. It is they who can put away their guilty mate and remarry without sin. It is understood that since the righteous or innocent mate has this right, the guilty put away person does not. If this is not the case, the exception phrase would be functionally of no use, grammatically speaking. The doctrine of the guilty put away may remarry allows the sinner a right that Jesus only afforded to the innocent mate.

It is contended that fornication or adultery "potentially" breaks the marriage bond for both the innocent and fornicating mate. They infer this from the fact that Jesus said the innocent mate may put away the guilty and be married to another. Therefore, they reason "if fornication frees the innocent to be able to remarry, then, the guilty is also freed to be able to marry another." Again, such logic defeats the primary grammatical design of the modifying phrase, "except it be for fornication." The innocent mate is being afforded the right to put away and marry another, not the guilty mate!

The proponents of the guilty put away may remarry not only ignore and disregard the function of the exception phrase, but they also fail to understand the nature of the marriage bond (Rom. 7: 2). They see two people making up the marriage bond, the husband and the wife. Hence, if one is freed, the other one is extricated from the bond. Their fallacy is seen in the fact that there are actually three involved in the marriage bond: the man and woman AND God (cp. Mal. 2: 14). Both husband and wife are bound to one another AND to God. Therefore, one can be freed from the marriage bond and the other remain under the bond.

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

Jesus said:

"32: 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....(Matt. 5, dm)...9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matt. 19).

Matthew 5: 32 teaches that the innocent mate may put away the guilty mate without sin, the exception phrase (parekktos logou porneias) shows this to be the case. Matthew 19: 9 adds the scenario of the subsequent allowed marriage to another, as far as the innocent putting away mate is concerned. The exception phrase me epi porneia is for the innocent mate and not the guilty mate. To apply the phrase to the guilty mate is to allow the same rights to the guilty as Jesus extends to the innocent. Thus, such argumentation takes away any intended grammatical advantage the exception phrase offers to the godly or innocent and strips, grammatically speaking, the exception phrase of all intended meaning.

Here is the second reason why the exception phrase of clause A of Matthew 19: 9 does not belong in clause B.

I have mentioned that the exception phrase modifies the verb "shall put away" and thus serves as adverbial in purpose. In clause B, the subject is "man," which is modified by the definite article, which is masculine gender. The man keeps on committing adultery (moichatai, third person, singular, present tense, and in the indicative mood, The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 272). The man who keeps on committing adultery is the man who marries the "having-been-put-away" woman. "Put away" in clause B in the King James is from apolelumenen, which is accusative case, singular, feminine in gender, participle, perfect, passive, The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 44). To attempt to force "except it be for fornication" into clause B is to make it grammatically modify a participle, the having been put away woman. Moreover, if the "except it be for fornication" of clause A is forced into clause B of Matthew 19: 9, you then have the phrase which modified the verb "shall put away" of clause A modifying the having been put away woman of clause B (a substantive) ; thus, making it adjectival instead of adverbial. This constitutes another grammatically "awkward situation," to say the least, and further suggests that the Lord did not mean for the reader to view the exception phrase as floating from clause A to clause B of Matthew 19: 9, thus also freeing the guilty put away to marry another.

In closing, the teaching that Jesus freed both the innocent and the guilty to be able to marry another is patently false. The falsity is seen in defeating the very basic thing Jesus intended by using the phrase, "except it be for fornication" (allowing the innocent the right that the guilty do not have) and the grammatical structure and syntax of Matthew 19: 9.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Don Martin to Jack Simpson and the list (post one of three):

First, thank you, Jack, for your responsive post. I asked for comments about my arguments as to why the exception phrase in Matthew 19: 9 that appears in clause A is grammatically limited to clause A and you have replied. Let me say up front, I am only interested in an amicable exchange. If I understand your teaching, you and I agree that the exception phrase, "except it be fornication" in clause A does not apply to clause B (having the put away for fornication person to remarry). If I have misrepresented you, please correct me. I am, I assure you, only interested in the truth and arguments that efficaciously present the truth and refute error. I always welcome an objective examination of my teaching and arguments. For the record, I do not simply have a thought run through my mind and then make a post in order to "think tank." I usually have attempted to cover all bases, from A through Z before I make an argument. Does this mean that I think that I am infallible? No!

Jack wrote:

I have referred to this view which you oppose as being the "exception clause distributes across the conjunction" view. It is like the "distributive rule" in math.

A (B + C) means that A is taken times B and it is also taken times C...the value of A distributes across the "and".

Don replies:

While I am sure there is much room for improvement, I do understand some basic math principles, of such logic consists and rests. However, I fail to see what the above means in terms of applying to the grammar of Matthew 19: 9. Perhaps this failure reveals a deficit on my part. Also, I admit negligence because I did not see and read the post to which you allude in the above. I am sorry.

Jack wrote of my grammatical analysis and application:

Your argument is probably invalid because the exception clause is also adverbial in B.

Don replies:

Jack, I am sorry but you have again lost me.

Jack, I do not know how you can grammatically say, "the exception clause is also adverbial in B." Your statement totally eludes my ability of understanding and digestion.

Jack continued:

(Even if it WERE adverbial in clause A and adjectival in B, I'm not sure you could sustain that it is "awkward, to say the least." You would need to show some rule in a grammar or demonstrate that that never happens).

Continued in the next post.

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

Jack, again I thank you for your time and ability. I do want to keep this whole matter on a friendly level and tone. Again I stress that it is my understanding that as far as the guilty put away not being able to marry while the innocent putting away mate lives, you and I are in basic agreement. As I understand it, you are just not sure regarding the correctness of my grammatical argument against the floating exception phrase in Matthew 19: 9. That is, the view that "except it be for fornication" of clause A grammatically applying also to clause B; thus, allowing the guilty put away marriage to another.

Jack, I know that you and I agree that there are basic and fundamental rules in Greek grammar. I do not, please read this carefully, have to show that there are no situational differences, but I do have the burden of showing that in a given case, there is a circumstantial exception (see more below).

Jack wrote:

(Even if it WERE adverbial in clause A and adjectival in B, I'm not sure you could sustain that it is "awkward, to say the least." You would need to show some rule in a grammar or demonstrate that that never happens).

Don comments:

In Lesson Six of the Online Greek Course in Bible Truths, the attention is placed on nouns, pronouns, and conjunctions. Throughout these lessons, the student is presented the fact of the established rules of grammar. Allow me to insert a few illustrative excerpts: "...A pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender and number. Therefore, the Greek pronoun in usage is similar to the pronoun in our English language. Please examine the following sentence: blepw ton maqhthn kai didaskw auton. Let me explain that tňn is the definite Article (Lesson Seven), mathetén is the Greek word for disciple, and autón is the pronoun him. Hence, I see the disciple and teach him. Remember didasko from Lesson Three? Here ma-the-tén (both letters e are eta, pronounced as long a in English, with the accent on the ultima or last syllable) is the antecedent of autón and since matheten is of masculine gender and singular number, autón also is masculine singular..... It will be observed that in English in the plural the personal pronoun is the same in form for all three genders (them), whereas in Greek it varies...."

What is my point? The point is there is the established grammatical norm and such is to be understood as the case, unless there is a reason for exceptionally understanding a grammatical construction and syntax. For instance, Daniel Wallace in his "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics," page 293 discusses the idiomatic uses of the accusative adjective in the neuter adverbially used. This would be an idiomatic exceptional circumstance and must not simply be assumed as the instance in a given case. The norm is to be understood as the case, again, unless there is a syntactical preclusion.

Jack, I do not want to open a sensitive point, but this is where you and I disagreed on the normal functional use of the Greek perfect when used in the indicative mood sometime back. Simply put, adverbial phrases generally modify verbs and adjectival phrases modify nouns. This was and is my point.

Here is the argument, Jack and the list: I am not under any obligation to prove such is not the case with clause A and B of Matthew 19: 9. The burden rests on those who contend for the "floating exception phrase" applying to clause B. I maintain that grammatically, the exception phrase of clause A would not comfortably and naturally apply to clause B. To argue differently, it must be shown by the syntax in which the phrase occurs, the immediate context, or the remote context that there is reason and impetus for concluding that the norm IS NOT the case in Matthew 19: 9. I say this also in view of Jesus extending the right to put away to the innocent mate. Men extending to the guilty mate the right to put away negates the privilege Jesus gave to the innocent.

Jack and the list, this is as simple as I know how to state the above.

Don Martin to Jack Simpson the list:

I was checking some of my Greek files tonight and I came across some material on the grammar of Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9 (the exception phrase) written about twenty-eight years ago by Roy Deaver (a respected Greek student and teacher, the other quoted men are also highly respected). I shall insert it now in hopes that it may clarify the point that I was making in showing that viewing the exception phrase in clause A as applying to clause B is grammatically awkward (to say the least). You will see some difference as to whether or not they think the exception phrase modifies both "shall put away" and "shall marry" but they agree regarding the exception phrase not naturally finding a place in clause B of Matthew 19: 9.

"In the Greek testament the 'except for fornication' phrase appears in the first clause, and it does not appear in the second clause....The phrase does modify the two verbs in the first clause; brother Hale has it modifying a participle in the second clause. Further, brother Hale (in the second clause) has the phrase modifying 'her that is put away.' We have stressed previously that the 'except for fornication' phrase modifies the two verbs 'shall put away' and 'shall marry.' The phrase is identically related to these two verbs, apolusa and gamasa. This fact cannot be denied successfully, and it must not be disregarded. The phrase, therefore, is clearly adverbial in function. Brother Hale attempts to make an adjectival phrase out of it. There can be no justification for attempting to make an adjectival phrase out of an adverbial phrase....The subject of the second clause is 'man," which is modified by the definite article which is in the masculine gender....The man who has married a having-been-put-away woman keeps on committing adultery....." (The Spiritual Sword, Volume 6, January, 1975, Number 2).

Roy Laniar, SR. wrote regarding "except it be for fornication" as follows:

"Except for fornication" is an adverbial clause, since it modifies the predicate of the sentence. Since it is not repeated in the last half of the sentence, I think no one can prove that it is implied as a modifier of any word in that last clause. But suppose we admit, for sake of argument, that it should be repeated in the last half of the sentence in 5: 32 and 19: 9. What word in the last clause  would the compound phrase modify? It cannot very well modify the word 'marries,' which is the verb and the predicate of the clause, since that would make fornication a reason for another marriage. And we have already shown that is not a very good reason for another marriage. It cannot very well modify 'a dismissed woman' of the last clause. Although this word (apolelumenen, translated a dismissed woman) is a participle, it is used here as a substantive (noun) and is the object of the verb 'marries.' If the compound phrase, 'apart from a matter of fornication,' modifies this substantive it becomes an adjectival modifier instead of adverbial. Since it is used but once in the sentence it seem that it cannot be taken as both adverbial and adjectival....." (Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, pg. 43, 44).

Gene Frost wrote:

"In the first clause - 'whosoever shall put away his wife' - the exception modifies the verb, 'shall put away,' and therefore is adverbial. However, in the second clause - 'who marrieth her which is put away' - the exception modifies 'her which is put away,' and therefore is adjectival. 'Her that is put away' is translated from one word, apolelumenan, which is a participial substantive. In tense it is perfect, indicating completed action, i.e. the having-been-put-away woman. It is a grammatical perversion to take an adverbial exception, modifying apoluse: a verb, and in the same sentence elliptically make it an adjectival exception, modifying apolelumenan...." (Marriage is Honorable, " pg. 8).

Again, Jack and the list, I maintain that the grammar would not ordinarily welcome the placement of the exception phrase in clause B of Matthew 19: 9.  I submit that the exception phrase of clause A does not modify clause B for the following simple reasons:

(1). Jesus by using the exception phrase extended a liberty to the innocent mate (divorce and marriage to another). To attempt to force the exception phrase into clause B would be allowing the same right to the guilty put away; thus, neutralizing the advantage of the innocent mate and placing a premium on adultery.

(2). If Jesus had meant for "except for fornication" of clause A to also modify the having been put away woman (the phrase would be adjectivally used), he would have added it and would have used a grammatical setting that would have smoothly received the phrase (a grammatically changed form).

Jack, thanks again for your time. I trust that this has not caused confusion to any on ____ (name of list). The language of Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9 is allowing the innocent mate to put away a mate who has fornicated and the innocent mate is allowed marriage to another. The guilty mate is not also allowed marriage to another.

Don Martin to Jack Simpson and the list:

Jack concluded:

"I think you should abandon your argument and your plan to write an article about this." (The article to which Jack referred is found in Bible Truths and is titled, "Matthew 5: 32 and Matthew 19: 9." I had mentioned my plans to prepare such material and publish it to Bible Truths).

Jack, I do not agree. I again, though, stress that our posts to each other have been characterized by misunderstanding. At this time, I plan on this being my last post on the "floating exception phrase position." It does appear that you do believe the phrase can modify clause A and B. I say this based on what you wrote:

Jack and the list, one more quote, this time from the English perspective:

"The modifying clause (except it be for fornication) applies only to the first person mentioned, in the first half of the sentence. It does not apply, grammatically or syntactically, to the person ('whoso marrieth her who is put away') in the second half of the sentence" (Donald Drury, English Dept. Long Beach City College, quoted from the Melear/Williams Debate).

Thank all of you for your time and interest. I apologize for not being able to be simpler and easier to follow in my arguments, explanations, and illustrations.

Don Martin to Keith Morris and the list (post one of three):

First, thank you, Keith, for your questions pertaining to the exception phrase of Matthew 19: 9, clause A. The whole thrust of my initial posts is if the exception can be elliptically viewed (inferred) in regards to clause B; thus, allowing the put away for fornication mate marriage to another. Let me say that some may be tired of this vein. I can understand, I know that grammar is boring to many people. After answering Keith's questions, I do not foresee having anything else to say about the matter.

Keith asked:

1. Do Greek participles receive adverbial modifiers? Yes or No?
2. If "no" will you be convinced and recant if I show to you examples from the NT of cases where participles were modified by adverbs or adverbial clauses? Yes or No?
3. Consider the following sentence. "Whosoever marries her that is put away WRONGLY commits adultery," Is "wrongly" an adverb? Yes or No? In Greek would "her that is put away" be expressed by a participle? Yes or No? Could one (grammatically correctly) substitute the adverbial phrase "except for fornication" for the adverb "wrongly?" Yes or no? If not, why not?

Don comments:

Before I address these questions, I want to do two things: I want to again put everything into perspective (this post), lay some ground work (post two), and answer the questions (post three).

Let me again emphasize that understanding or even accepting the grammatical objection that I made regarding the "except for fornication" not being allowed in clause B is not necessary to agreeing that "except for fornication" only applies to the circumstance of clause A, the innocent mate putting away his wife for her fornication and being thus exonerated and allowed marriage to another. As I have contended, the whole function of "except for fornication" is to allow a liberty to the innocent mate; namely, the right to divorce and marry another. To argue for the guilty put away having the same privilege would be to neutralize the exception phrase.

Also, if Jesus had wanted the exception phrase to apply to the situation of clause B, thus allowing the guilty put away marriage to another, he could have easily have made this unarguably the case by using a number of grammatical and syntactical postures. "Except for fornication" would normally be viewed as limited to the clause in which it appears (without any other indication present).

"Don, I agree that only the innocent mate may put away and marry another, but I do not accept your grammatical argument!" This is fine with me, I am not going to draw lines of fellowship over this. I have never "marked" any over such a difference.

See post number two, please.

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

I have made some points in previous posts as to I believe the exception phrase of clause A of Matthew 19: 9 should not and cannot be viewed as present in clause B (I do believe there is sufficient manuscript authority for the presence of clause B, as it appears in the KJV). I probably have not done a very good job communicating some of this information. I am sorry. I have tried to be simple and brief and in so doing, I am afraid, I have not been exhaustive. A number of statements have been attributed to me that I have never made perhaps because I did not take the time to say, "I am not saying..."

I have focused simply on words that grammatically constitute adverbial and adjectival modifiers. Let me mention a few things that I am afraid are going to be confusing to some (one reason I have not addressed such). I mention this now because the expression in clause B of Matthew 19: 9, "the having been put away woman" is accusative case, singular, feminine in gender, participle, and perfect tense. Hence, it involves a substantive (noun substitute) and a verbal (participle).

Some Greek grammarians view the participle as a declinable verbal adjective (I am mentioning this because of the apparent confusion over Greek adverbs and adjectives functioning as "one" and "separately"). This is because it derives from its verbal nature tense and voice; and from its adjectival nature, gender, number and case (see Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, by Daniel Wallace, pg. 613). Greek grammar can be meticulous when specificity is considered. I mentioned that "except for fornication" in clause A is adverbial. We could be more detailed and discuss the eight kinds of adverbial participles, the temporal, manner, means, cause, condition, concession, purpose, and result. We could have discussed in some detail the matter of a participle functioning as an adjective and modifying a substantive and thus being an attributive participle (Ibid., pg. 617). All of this would have been involved in a scholarly discussion of the pertinent grammar, but I really thought such would have been of no interest to the common person. I could have also introduced A. T. Robertson's comments regarding the situation of the "verbal adjective" (from his granddaddy Grammar):

"The very name participle (pars, capio) indicates this fact. The word is part adjective, part verb. Voss calls it mules, which is part horse and part ass...In the true participle, therefore, we are to look for both the adjectival and verbal aspects....The emphasis will vary in certain instances. Now the adjectival will be more to the fore as in the attributive articular participle like o kalwn. Now the verbal side is stressed as in the circumstantial participle. But the adjectival notion never quite disappears in the one as the verbal always remains in the other (barring a few cases noted above). One must, therefore, explain in each instance both the adjectival and verbal functions of the participle else he has set froth only one side of the subject." (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, pg. 1101).

Again, though, I did not think such material would be of much practical value in my posts. Am I suggesting that many on this list are dumb? NO! I am just saying that unless one is trained on this level of the science of Greek grammar, such will just be meaningless, confusing, and appear as contradictory. In view of me not mentioning some of this, I have come across as either being ignorant of or denying some of the above quotations.

Let me say that I understand (I have room to learn more) the "verbal nature of adjectives," etc. However, I have tried to make a specific argument, based on a specific grammar climate, with specific conclusions forthcoming. Let me again repeat without intending to speak down to any, there is more to Greek grammar than finding a rule in a grammar and quoting it. Specific grammar must be considered in its specific climate and syntax. This is the essential basis of my grammatical objection to any inferring the exception phrase as being present in clause B of Matthew 19: 9 and thus allowing the guilty put away mate marriage to another.

Please see post three.

Don Martin to Keith Morris and the list (post three of three):

1. Do Greek participles receive adverbial modifiers? Yes or No?
Answer: Yes, Greek participles can "receive adverbial modifiers."

2. If "no" will you be convinced and recant if I show to you examples from the NT of cases where participles were modified by adverbs or adverbial clauses? Yes or No?
Answer: I answered "yes" to question one, therefore, no answer is required for question two (I have taken the liberty to add "A, B, C, and D," thus breaking down question three).

3. Consider the following sentence. "Whosoever marries her that is put away WRONGLY commits adultery," (A). Is "wrongly" an adverb? Yes or No? (B). In Greek would "her that is put away" be expressed by a participle? Yes or No? (C). Could one (grammatically correctly) substitute the adverbial phrase "except for fornication" for the adverb "wrongly?" Yes or no? (D). If not, why not?
Answer (A): In the immediately above sentence, the modifier "wrongly" is an adverb in nature, function, and design.
Answer (B): I am a little unclear as to the wording of this question. I would answer that, yes, "her that is put away" could be expressed "by a participle" in Greek syntax.
Answer (C): Yes, in the provided sentence example, one could substitute (use instead) the adverbial phrase "except for fornication" for the adverb "wrongly." Keep in mind, though, that the essential objection to viewing the exception phrase ("except for fornication") of clause A of Matthew 19: 9 as elliptical relative to clause B is that the modifier "except for fornication" is adverbially used (in the syntax of clause A) and to, as such, inject it into the syntax of clause B would necessitate the phrase to adjectivally function (some disagree with me on this point). I believe such an objection is valid based on the proximity of clause A and B.

If Jesus had wanted to apply the exception phrase to both the scenarios being addressed in clause A and B, he could have easily have done so in such a way as to cause a smooth flow of the grammar (a number of constructions could suffice). However, "except for fornication" adverbially functions in clause A and is separated by "and" (introducing another clause). Also, in view of the grammatical construction of clause B, the phrase would have to adjectivally function to modify the substantive "having been put away woman." While "having been put away woman" also constitutes a verbal (present participle), such does not preclude the required adjectival as opposed, technically, to the adverbial usage in clause A being not what would be considered the ideal receptive grammatical posture. This is the also the argument that Gene Frost, Ron Laniar, Sr., and Roy Deaver made on clause A and B of Matthew 19: 9 (that I have quoted). Could they be wrong? Yes, but these are not sloppy students of the word, who unthinkingly advance an argument. Could I also be wrong? Could be, but I do not think I am. Again, the grammatical objection to inferring "except for fornication" in clause B must be understood as made. The objection is applicable to the precise and particular grammar of Matthew 19: 9, clause A and B.

When I began these posts, I had hoped that others who have sufficient Greek grammar knowledge would have also contributed. Jack Simpson has been the main contributor. While I had some stated problems with Jack, I do appreciate his knowledge and willingness to disagree and show where he thought I was wrong.

Keith, again thank you for your questions and for the spirit in which you asked them. I love to attempt to answer questions and I trust my efforts to answer your questions have been beneficial. What will be my response to any presenting additional arguments as to why they think I am wrong? If the issue is focused on, I will be the first to thank them!

I bid all a good day and great progress in your studies.

Don Martin to the list: (Not under bondage exchange, I Corinthians 7: 15.)

I have noticed in the process of posting on marriage, divorce, and remarriage during the last week that I Corinthians 7: 15 has been mentioned. I Corinthians 7: 15 contains what has been called "the Pauline Privilege." The verse reads, "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace" (I Cor. 7: 15). Many religionists tell us that there are two allowable cases for divorce and remarriage when there is a living mate. Adultery and desertion, they explain based on Matthew 5: 32, 19: 9, and I Corinthians 7: 15. Is Paul actually introducing a second reason?

Paul is addressing the situation of a believer and unbeliever being married (vs. 12-16). Hence, there is immediate restriction and limit regarding an application of "not under bondage." Also, remarriage is not even being discussed in the passage. "Not under bondage" is from the Greek dedoulotai. The grammar posture of dedoulotai is "3 person, singular, perfect tense, indicative mood, and passive voice" (Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 85). The perfect tense is, "…the tense is thus double; it implies a past action and affirms an existing result" (Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, by Ernest Burton, pg. 37). If "bondage" means marriage, as some insist, Paul is saying the believer is not and has not ever been in bondage (married?). Paul has argued that the believer is bound (marriage bond) to the unbeliever (vs. 12, 13). Deo, the word for the marriage bond, is used 44 times (see Rom. 7: 2, I Cor. 7: 27, 39). However, deo is not used in verse 15. Also of interest in establishing the exact scenario of the verse, "depart" is chorizetai and is present tense (ibid., pg. 440).

Paul is not allowing a second reason for divorce and remarriage, but is saying that the believer has not been reduced to slavery (meaning of dedoulotai, Thayer' Greek-English Lexicon, pg. 158, see vs. 23). The use of the present tense accompanied by the other grammar contributions and the meaning of "unbeliever," presents a situation of the pagan mate attempting to cause the believing mate to depart from Christ, I am convinced. Hence, become a slave to the pagan mate. Such must not be allowed. The believer's relationship with Christ must take priority even over the demands of their mate (cp. Col. 3: 18). In such matters, the believing mate is not and has not been a slave.

Therefore, I Corinthians 7: 15 is not stating another allowed case, other than adultery, for divorce and subsequent remarriage.

Cordially,
Don Martin

David …to Don (David issued a challenge):

I don't follow this argument...and I believe it belies a very bad understanding of the perfect tense. To say that a past action occurs with a result into the present is not to say that this present state has ALWAYS been in the past. Is that what you meant to say? Maybe I misunderstood.

I would ask you to apply this to what is commonly said about "bondage" here...that it is the duty to perform marital responsibilities (rather than the bond of marriage itself). Has one who has been freed of that duty to perform marital duties (when the spouse deserts) NEVER had those duties? Is Paul saying (using Don's words) that the believer "does not and NEVER HAS had those duties?" Of course not. That is NOT the implication of the perfect tense! This argument is full of holes.

Cordially,
David

Don Martin to David and the list (my answer):

I wrote the following Regarding "bondage" in I Corinthians 7: 15:

Paul is addressing the situation of a believer and unbeliever being married (vs. 12-16). Hence, there is immediate restriction and limit regarding an application of "not under bondage." Also, remarriage is not even being discussed in the passage."Not under bondage" is from the Greek dedoulotai. The grammar posture of dedoulotai is "3 person, singular, perfect tense, indicative mood, and passive   voice"(Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 85). The perfect tense is, "…the tense is thus double; it implies a past action and affirms an existing result" (Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, by Ernest Burton, pg. 37). If "bondage" means marriage, as some insist, Paul is saying the believer is not and has not ever been in bondage (married?). Paul has argued that the believer is bound (marriage bond) to the unbeliever (vs. 12, 13). Deo, the word for the marriage bond, is used 44 times (see Rom. 7: 2, I Cor. 7: 27, 39). However, deo is not used in verse 15. Also of interest in establishing the exact scenario of the verse, "depart" is chorizetai and is present tense (ibid., pg. 440).

Don answers David's arguments:

David, thank you for your interest in I Corinthians 7: 15. I shall address your reply in sections.

You wrote: "To say that a past action occurs with a result into the present is not to say that this present state has ALWAYS been in the past."

Don responds:

David, if dedoulotai (bondage) refers to being a spiritual slave, as I believe it does, then Paul is saying the Christian is not a slave and has not been in the past. Hence, the unbelieving mate has no right to attempt to make them a slave, in bondage to man (vs. 23). I think you have done what we often do, you have taken your assigned meaning to a word, applied it to the argument being advanced by another, and then drawn your believed necessary conclusion (see next point). However, I do think I could have been a little clearer in my original argumentation.

David wrote:

"I would ask you to apply this to what is commonly said about 'bondage' here...that it is the duty to perform marital responsibilities (rather than the bond of marriage itself)."

Don answers:

David, I have not said dedoulotai (bondage) refers to "marital duties." I do not believe it does. As I have said, I am convinced "bondage" refers to "being made a slave of man" (vs. 15, 23).

David concludes:

"Is Paul saying (using Don's words) that the believer "does not and NEVER HAS had those duties?" Of course not. That is NOT the implication of the perfect tense! This argument is full of holes."

Don answers:

David, in all kindness, you are addressing an imaginary problem, as far has what I have written is concerned. Again, the "bondage" is not the marriage bond, as some say, and it is not marital duties. It is being a slave to man. Marriage and marital duties are not referred to as slavery in the scriptures.

As grammarian Burton wrote "The perfect tense is, "…the tense is thus double; it implies a past action and affirms an existing result" (Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, by Ernest Burton, pg. 37); hence, whatever is understood by Paul in "bondage," was not then present and had not been in the past. The mate of an unbeliever was not then and had not in the past been in bondage to man.

David, thank you for your challenge. By you so questioning what I have taught, it provided an opportunity to make a point with greater clarity. This can be an advantage to brethren discussing matters in an exchange format, more clarity of positions should result. David, would you be interested in taking the Online Greek Study Course in Bible Truths? I think you would do well and enjoy the study. There are eight lessons with about 160 questions which you submit by via of email and the grade is returned in the same manner. To check out the course, enter through the door on the home page and click on "Online Greek Course" in the table on the Site Map page

Cordially,
Don Martin

Robert...to Don Martin and the list:

...Foy Wallace was a scholar.  Regarding this “not under bondage” controversy he wrote:

"If that does not mean that the believer in these circumstances is free to marry, then it cannot mean anything, for if the one involved is not altogether free the bondage would still exist" (p. 45).

Don, and a few others, would have the reader to reject brother Wallace’s logical statement and accept their own illogical assertions.

Don answers:

Through the years, I have fully come to expect the above modus operandi on the part of false teachers.  They never face the real issue, in this case, the perfect tense of the verb rendered bondage in I Corinthians 7: 15.  When I advance arguments, I usually do two things:  I present grammar and linguistical arguments when applicable, and I attempt to reason from contextual implication.

(1).  If Paul meant for the perfect tense bondage to be the marriage bond responsibilities, then he has flip flopped in his teaching and thrust.  Let me show you what I mean.  Paul has forcefully enjoined marriage responsibilities on the believer, though married to an unbeliever (vs. 12-16).  He, therefore, would not turn around in verse 15 and say that the believer in such a marriage (responsibilities) was not in the past bound martially to the unbeliever.  Such is total nonsense.

(2). Another related point is that Paul has labored to prove that the union and marital bond between the believer and unbeliever is recognized by God and binding.  If the marriage bond were not in place, both would be in fornication.  Paul affirms, however, such is not the case (vs. 12-15).  It is, therefore, reckless exegesis to force "bondage" to mean the marriage bond or marriage duties, since it is literally saying, "has not in the past resulting in the present" been in bondage.

Again, I maintain that there is only one reason for divorcement and subsequent remarriage, the fornication of the put away mate.  To try to make Paul teach a second cause is totally in opposition with every thing taught on the subject and is diametrically opposed to the perfect tense (bondage) in I Corinthians 7: 15.  Let me again close with a quotation from a recognized Greek authority:

The perfect tense is, "…the tense is thus double; it implies a past action and affirms an existing result" (Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, by Ernest Burton, pg. 37); Marshall in Nestle's Greek/English  Interlinear renders dedoulotai thus, "has not been enslaved."  Marshall is obviously seeking to suggest in English the past/present action of the perfect tense.

Don Martin to the list:

In this post, I shall share with you a few posts relative to the perfect tense translation, implication, and application of bondage in I Corinthians 7: 15 (reasons why I do not believe "bondage" refers to marriage as such):

"If the unbelieving depart.  The sense of the word rendered 'depart' is rather 'wishes to be separated.'  'Is not under bondage;' literally, has not been enslaved" (The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 19, pg. 225).

While I do not agree with Lenski's application of the verse in general to marriage, consider his comments regarding the perfect tense:  "The perfect tense states more than the present used in our versions.  The perfect reaches back to the day when the unbelieving spouse entered upon the
desertion and states that form that moment onward the believing spouse has not been held bound...." (Interpretation of I and 2 Corinthians).

Marshall renders dedoulotai (bondage) as follows:  "has not been enslaved" (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Nestle/Marshall).

Don Martin to the list (continued):

As I have mentioned, I enjoy a good, amicable discussion of Greek grammar and its application.  It is not unusual for there to be agreement relative to a grammatical point, but disagreement as to its application. There can be many reasons for such disagreement.  There have been three who have disagreed with me on this list regarding my contention that because of the perfect tense of "bondage," it does not refer to the marriage bond or marital duties in I Corinthians 7: 15; hence, precludes the argument that Paul is granting license for divorce and remarriage based on desertion.  Regarding these three individuals, I absolutely disagree with the position of one of them (Robert Waters) and I am not altogether sure as to every nuance of what the other two are saying. However, they all three apparently believe I am in serious error in my position.

I shall now quote from a couple of writers who have made a similar argument as I, based on the perfect tense.  Perhaps they can explain the matter more understandably than I have (the fact that I am quoting them does not mean that I endorse their teaching in all things):

"'...Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases.'  Chorizetai (departs) does not mean that the unbeliever has already departed; the verb is a conative present.  It means the action is attempted or willed....Paul says: 'the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases.'  'Is not under bondage' is ou dedoulotai, a perfect indicating a completed action with a present result.  There is no reason to say, 'has been but is not now under bondage.'  The force is rather 'has not been placed under bondage (or enslaved) and is not now under bondage (or enslaved).'  The Christian has never been in the bondage here contemplated.  The statement in verse 23 is parallel: 'Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants (douloi, 'slaves,' the same root as dedoulotai, 'enslaved,' in 7: 15) of men.'  The word dedoulotai, ('enslaved,' 'under bondage,' 'bound') of I Corinthians 7: 15 should be carefully distinguished from dedetai ('bound' in the sense of morally obligated).  Dedetai is used in I Corinthians 7: 39: 'A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth.'  It obviously means morally obligated; it does not mean 'enslaved'....    I Corinthians 7: 15 gives no basis for assuming Paul is allowing a second ground for divorce and remarriage...."   (By Harvey Floyd, Ph. D. Vanderbilt University.)

"The tense of the word dedoulotai would not allow it to mean the marriage bond.   The word is perfect tense.  The perfect tense would mean the brother or sister had not been in bondage and is still not under bondage to the unbeliever.  But the believer would certainly have been in bondage if the marriage bond is meant....Since the word dedoulotai means 'to make someone a slave, enslave, subject (Ardnt-Gingrich), the only kind of slavery that a believer had ever been under was before conversion.  From the  time of conversion, the Christian has not been enslaved.....The marriage bond is not even implied in 'not under bondage.'  The statement simply means that the believer is not to give up Christianity or compromise truth in order to save the marriage with an unbeliever" (Weldon Warnock, "Review of James D. Bales' Book, Searching the Scriptures).

I thank each of you for following these posts.  I do not mind disagreement or being questioned as to what I teach.  However, we should be able to keep disagreements from being personal and assaulting.  This applies to all of us.

Don Martin to Gerry.....  and the list:

Gerry wrote (Message 21, April 11, 2001, Digest 959):

Don, look at Col. 4:3 .  A form of DEO is used.  This passage is not talking about marriage.  But you keep insisting that DEO means marriage bond.  As a matter of fact DEO is used 44 times in the NT.  It only occurs in three passages where the subject is marriage.  What you have been saying has been misleading.  Maybe it was unintentional-but misleading none the less.

Don answers:

Gerry, you are exactly correct that deo is not used of the marriage bond in Colossians 4: 3.  I do not know of anyone who has ever said that deo is always used of the marriage bond in its 44 occurrences in the Greek New Testament.  The "form" in Colossians 4: 3 is, dedemai.  Dedemai is 1 person, singular in number, perfect tense, indicative mood, and passive voice. Except for the person difference, dedemai is in the same grammar posture as dedoulotai, both are perfect verbs and in the indicative mood.  Both describe an action in the past with a resulting state.  In other words, the believer of I Corinthians 7: 15 had not been under bondage (dedoulotai) in the past with the result being not presently under bondage (the negative, rough translation) and Paul had been under bonds (dedemai) in the past with the result being he was presently in bonds (Col. 4: 3).

I have repeatedly explained that the "bondage" of I Corinthians 7: 15 cannot be the marriage bond for at least two reasons:  (1). The believer is shown to be under bondage, maritally speaking (I Cor. 7: 12-14) and (2) Paul used a different word in verse 15 for "bondage" than what he used in the same context for the marriage bond (7: 27, 39).  Gerry, my point has been deo, the word for the marriage bond in I Corinthians 7 is not the word Paul used in verse 15, douloo.  Why did he change words if he meant to refer to the marriage bond in verse 15?  Moreover, I have said that "douloo" is never used for the marriage bond in the eight times it is used.  I did not say that deo in all of its 44 occurrences is used for the marriage bond.  My reference to deo being used for the marriage bond pertained to the context of I Corinthians 7.  I am sorry if my statement was misleading.

Gerry, please allow me to emphasize another matter:  deo (I Cor. 7: 27, 39, Col. 4: 3) and douloo (I Cor. 7: 15) are different words.  Deo is used 44 times and douloo 8 times.  For example, if you were using a work such as "The Word Study Concordance" by George Wigram and Ralph Winter, you would find deo listed under 1210, pg. 137 and douloo under 1402, pg. 164.  I have admitted that deo and douloo have some similarity in their etymology, but they are considered to be two different words.

Gerry and the list, I realize that all of this can have the potential for being a little confusing.  However, the bottom line again is that there is only one cause for divorce and remarriage when there is a living mate, the cause of fornication (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9).  Also, there is no indication that "fornication" is used in its exceptional figurative sense of spiritual infidelity (Jere. 3: 8, the way some explain I Cor. 7: 15).

Don Martin to Lee Wilson and the list:

About a week ago, I published to the list a question as to what others thought of the debate proposition for the Osborne/Sheridan discussion. Here is what I asked:

I have been wondering what the general reaction is to the proposition Terence Sheridan and Harry Osborne signed in their recent written debate (Sheridan was affirmative). Here is the proposition:

"The Scriptures teach that biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one's respective society and that the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry."

Notice the two essential parts: biblical putting away is synonymous with the prevailing civil procedure and the innocent one must secure that civil divorce. Do you think this is exactly and absolutely what the scriptures teach and require? Could you sign the affirmative and if so or not, why?

Lee Wilson has responded with the following:

I haven't read the debate, and I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'll offer a response to your question and we'll see where it takes us.

No, I could not sign that affirmative. Whether there is a right to remarry is another question. But I would like to focus on the part of the proposition that makes civil procedure synonymous with Biblical putting away....

Don comments:

My intent is not necessarily to engage anyone in this post, but to solicit any help that you may have to offer. I, like Lee, could not sign the proposition as it was worded. At this point, I shall briefly comment on sections of Lee's post:

Lee wrote:

I believe It began with a misunderstanding of what constitutes marriage.

Don comments:

I have contended for many years that marriage and divorce possess the same basic components and elements, antithetically considered. For instance, with marriage there must be intent, declaration of intent, and conformity to all applicable civil law. Divorce, the opposite or undoing of marriage, must involve intent, declaration of intent, and conformity to all applicable civil laws. One is not married just because they will it; conversely, one is not divorced just because they think it (mental divorce) or experience it in their heart (put away in the heart).

Lee wrote thus regarding the affirmation of the proposition that "biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one's respective society:"

If it's synonymous, then saying fornication must be the grounds for the putting away is saying fornication must be the grounds for the civil action.

Don reflects:

It could well be that I am wrong on this point, but I do not contend biblical putting away is "synonymous" with the civil procedure. I do, however, maintain that conformity to civil law is part of the biblical putting away, just as conformity to civil law is necessary in the case of marriage. I too believe, as I understood Lee to say, that if the putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure, there are difficulties that I cannot answer. Please understand me: I am not laying aside civil procedure. I am just not convinced it is tantamount. After this same fashion, I do not believe civil procedure is synonymous with biblical marriage. Again, perhaps I err in this matter. I am open for constructive criticism and teaching. It could be that I am not understanding the concept of "synonymous with the civil procedure."

Don Martin to Lee Wilson and the list:

I know it is easy to set back and attempt to find fault with another who has debated an issue. Terence Sheridan had the courage of his conviction to debate with Harry Osborne using the following proposition:

"The Scriptures teach that biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one's respective society and that the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry."

I have mentioned some of my problems with the first part of the proposition, the idea of biblical putting away being "synonymous" with the civil procedure. The second part also disturbs me. Remember that the debate proposition affirms an absolute (in the affirmative case). I contend that the innocent mate has been given the right by God to put away a guilty mate for their fornication and subsequently be able to remarry. I do not think the innocent mate is precluded or deprived of this right by a true "race to the court house." According to the second part of the proposition, it appears to me absolutely that no situational circumstance consideration is allowed, whatsoever.

Consider the provided example:

Bob falls in love with Susie and cheats on his wife Betty. He says to Betty, "I don't love you anymore and I'm divorcing you to move in with Susie." Betty doesn't want the divorce, nonetheless Bob files for a divorce. Betty fights the divorce every step of the way, contesting the whole affair. The court finally gives judgement to Bob.

Don comments:

I would have to inquire more as to what "Betty doesn't want the divorce," means; but "Betty fights the divorce every step of the way, contesting the whole affair" is important to me. If this is a case where Bob literally and reasonably won the race to the courthouse, I do not think we can absolutely say that Betty is doomed to celibacy as a put away innocent mate. According to the proposition, though, Betty is without hope. Observe:

Now what happened? Simple. Bob has put Betty away. He (1) renounced his bond with Betty; (2) complied with civil law; and (3) obtained civil recognition that the marriage is no longer functioning. What about Betty? Simple. She is "put away." It does not matter how innocent Betty was or how reprehensible and unfaithful Bob was. Betty is still the "put away" party and the Bible recognizes this to be true. The Bible has not said or implied otherwise, therefore we are not at liberty to go beyond what is written in this matter (1 Corinthians 4:5-6; 1 Peter 4:11).

It could be that in the foregoing example Betty was negligent ("I do not want the divorce"), however, she was active before the issuance of the civil decree. The following are the cases that disturb me: Betty does absolutely nothing before the finality of the civil decree and then decides to mentally put away and thinks she can remarry.

No, I would not have signed the affirmative of the proposition. In fact, I would have come closer to signing the denial.

Brethren and concerned readers, I believe we are moving toward the taking of two extreme views: everything is decided simply and only based on the civil document (one is the plaintiff...) and "the civil procedure is totally irrelevant in biblical putting away and the innocent mate can, after she has been civilly put away, put away her mate and remarry. I maintain that both of these positions are patently wrong.

Don Martin to Sam Peterson and the list:

Sam, thanks for testing my teaching and attempting to find flaws with it. I mean this, the truth takes precedent over pride and personalities. If I have vulnerabilities in what I teach, I want them exposed for my benefit and the profit of others. Also, thanks for commenting on my question to you. Regarding my question to you relative to you perhaps believing that some innocent put away people can remarry, you answered:

"I do believe Scripture implicitly teaches that SOME put away people can remarry. I do not believe the implication is based on any 'circumstance of fairness,' but is rather based on the Word of God."

Don comments:

Sam, you answered forthrightly and honestly. Thank you. However, you did not venture to expand on "SOME put away people" but indicated that you would subsequent to my next answer. Since you are not using the "fairness argument," I suppose you have another approach. I could mention the one who is no longer married ("put away" inferred) in I Corinthians 7: 10, 11 being "remarried" to her ex husband, but that is really not germane to our discussion.

You again asked me:

So, may I again ask: 1) do you believe some legally put away people can remarry? 2) If the answer is yes, could you briefly state the Biblical authority which you believe authorizes your position that some can remarry?

Don answers:

Sam, I did address this matter, at least in part, in my answering post. I stated:

As I have said, I think some well meaning brethren are going too far with the "biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure" argument. I believe the innocent has the God given right to elect to put away their guilty mate. I do not believe the guilty mate going to the courthouse before the innocent finds out about the adultery precludes the innocent from civilly pursuing the divorce or making civil efforts (in the case of the true race to the courthouse). However, when an innocent mate allows their mate to put them away, in every sense of the term, by being passive throughout the whole process, they are then the put away person.

I affirm two things in the above:

(1). I do not believe the guilty mate going to the courthouse before the innocent finds out about the adultery precludes the innocent from civilly pursuing the divorce or making civil efforts (in the case of the true race to the courthouse).

(2). And: However, when an innocent mate allows their mate to put them away, in every sense of the term, by being passive throughout the whole process, they are then the put away person.

I have never believed or taught that the whole "who is the putting away and the put away" is absolutely decided by who first activated the civil procedure. "Look at the divorce papers and see who the plaintiff and who the defendant is" is very helpful but not absolutely definitive, I do not believe. This is one reason I would not have signed in the affirmative the Sheridan/Osborne debate proposition.

The focus of my foregoing statements is centered on what the innocent mate does, can do, and does not do. All contend that the innocent must do something (mental decision, mental plus declaration, mental plus declaration and civil compliance). However, the put away can do nothing - it is too late (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). I understand it to be too late once the civil decree is finalized (usually six months after petitioning the court). You will glean from what I just said that I do not believe that one simply and officially becomes biblically put away at the point of the court petition (some do believe this).

Sam and the list, please carefully consider what I have said above. I do want to avoid being misunderstood and intelligibly set forth what I believe to be the truth pertaining to MDR. In my next post, I shall narrow down what I am saying in answer to your good and fair question.

Don Martin to Sam Peterson and the list:

If I were a disputant probing Don Martin's position on MDR, I would ask the same question that Sam has posed to me. He asked:

So, may I again ask: 1) do you believe some legally put away people can remarry? 2) If the answer is yes, could you briefly state the Biblical authority which you believe authorizes your position that some can remarry?

Don comments:

In establishing the climate in which to inject my answer, I want to first mention what I believe to be a clear cut case of biblical putting away:

Biblical putting away unquestionably and ideally is a case of Joe committing adultery (proved and repeated act) against Jane and Jane doing the following: Meets with the local elders and informs them of the circumstance and her decision to put away Joe; the elders meet with Joe and Jane and Joe admits his guilt, Jane then tells Joe that she is repudiating him, and she then initiates the civil action, attempting as best she can, depending on the state practice where she lives, to make even the document as clear as possible, as to her reason for seeking the divorce - fornication. Jane is steadfast and unwavering in her resolve, not going back to Joe before the civil decree is granted (I do not view I Cor. 7: 1-5 as saying that Jane must provide conjugal rights all the way until the decree issuance day). This is the procedure that all elders, preachers, and Christians should be teaching (sadly, it is not).

In serving as a preacher and also as an elder, I have been a witness to the foregoing. We have also set up a meeting with "Joe" and further established proof for "Jane" as to Joe's adultery. I have also been happy to provide a signed statement as to my (eldership) understanding of Joe's adultery (Jane needs to gather all the tangible proof she can, especially for subsequent documentation when needed). I have also literally hidden in the bushes (I really do not necessarily recommend this, it is dangerous) and along with the husband, observed the adultery for proof. If all would practice what I have just outlined, most of the problems, questions, and doubts facing churches today would vanish! I regret and resent the number of preachers and even elders telling the Janes, "let Joe be out his money to civilly put you way, you can then put him away, in your heart, and later remarry." I personally know of a number of cases where such advice has been given.

Sam and the list, I have absolutely no doubts or fear of equivocation regarding the above: the happening or the "procedure that eventuated in the total act of putting away" being biblical, all things equal and understood.

Here is my venerability, if I have a weakness:

What happens if Joe calls Jane and out of the blue says, "I do not love you and I have another women, I have committed adultery with her and I also just filed for divorce." Jane then obtains an attorney and does all she can through the court system to pursue any and all available legal courses to legally put away Joe, notwithstanding Joe first filed. In other words, Jane counter-sues. However, at the end, "Joe is still listed as the plaintiff."

What would my position be in the exact foregoing scenario? I would let it alone and not create a big stir over it or divide a church because of it. Jane would have to live with the circumstance and make her own decision as to her spiritual status and eligibility to remarry. This is my weakness, if you want to call it that.

Does the just stated above become the norm? NO. Am I inconsistent? This is a matter with which I wrestle and perhaps I am inconsistent. However, I just do not believe the innocent who does all they can before the whole matter is history is doomed, just because an ungodly mate "wins the race to the courthouse or "the counter-suit is denied."

Sam and any list members, if you want to dialectically attack me, here is your chance. It could be that my emotions and sense of fair play are blinding me. However, I do not believe the signature on the civil document is absolutely definitive in determining the putting away and the put away.

Some have contended that in the exact circumstance as Joe and Jane, Jane's actions legally constitute putting away, even though Joe's name may still be considered proof as being the plaintiff. Some, who have more legal knowledge than I, have told me that the plaintiff and defendant situation in a divorce case is not simply legally established by the simple determination of "whose name appears on the document." "The courts are not interested in establishing blame or even who the plantiff is....," they further state. If this is the case, why should the innocent even bother with the courts, you might ask? Again, civil law requires such, as I understand it, and it should be the innocent mate who petitions the court. The clear cut case I mention above is just further evidence that Jane is the one putting away and Joe is the put away, clearly in every sense of the word.

Sam and the list, I have answered the question as honestly and accurately as I am capable. I have seen numerous MDR problems and I have left two local works because of what I viewed to be cases of accepted adultery. However, I have never been involved with or seen a "true race to the courthouse situation." I say this simply to mention that I do not believe the real race to the courthouse is the problem. The problem is usually flagrant violations of Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9

Sam Peterson to Don Martin:

Thank you, Don. for your answer to my questions. You believe some legally put   away people can remarry. So do I. Here's why.

I believe 1 Corinthians 7.10-11 indicates a situation wherein a lady is unmarried, but has a husband at one and the same time. Now - how can a person be unmarried, yet at the same time have a husband (or wife)? To me, the answer is simple: she is unmarried, according to man, but has a husband, according to God.

(I don't understand why some brethren get hyper at the idea that a person can be married on one level [man's], but not on another level [God's]. If that's what Scripture indicates, that's the truth of the matter, regardless of "our" tradition or thinking. In Revelation 3.1, the church at Sardis was "alive" on one level [man's], but "dead" on another [God's]. If a church can be both alive and dead at one and the same time, why can't a person be married and unmarried at the same time?)

Given the fact that the unmarried woman in 1 Cor. 7.10-11 still has a husband, what recourse does her husband have if she should commit adultery? My answer, is that he has recourse to the provision stated in Matthew 19.9; i.e., he can put away his wife for the cause of fornication and (as Matt. 19.9 implies) remarry with God's approval.

Since Scripture nowhere legislates a putting away procedure, the most expeditious way of doing this would be up to the "innocent" party and possibly the church of which he/she is a member.

Summary: I believe 1 Cor. 7.10-11 implies that some legally put away people can lawfully put away an unfaithful spouse and remarry with God's blessing.

Don Martin to Sam Peterson and the list:

Sam asked me in a general discussion regarding the put away being able toput away and remarry. I have mentioned that in such circumstances, when ever the put away is mentioned, the put away is always wrong if they remarry (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). Of course, the discussion pertained to the put away remarrying someone else and not being reconciled to their mate. I notice Sam did not bother to quote me, but rather simply wrote: "You believe some legally put away people can remarry. So do I." Here is what I said (you can see why Sam does not quote me):

"I could mention the one who is no longer married ("put away" inferred) in I Corinthians 7: 10, 11 being "remarried" to her ex husband but that is really not germane to our discussion."

Sam then proceeded to thus reason toward his desired conclusion. Sam wrote:

"I believe 1 Corinthians 7.10-11 indicates a situation wherein a lady is unmarried, but has a husband at one and the same time. Now - how can a person be unmarried, yet at the same time have a husband (or wife)? To me, the answer is simple: she is unmarried, according to man, but has a husband, according to God.

Don comments:

The passage reads as follows:

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

I agree that the woman is divorced (evidently she put away her husband), but still bound to her husband. I might add, this was an act on her part totally against inspired teaching (vs. 1ff., see especially verse 11, "but and if"). I believe "husband" to be used somewhat accommodatively, after all, she is still bound to him and he to her, however, she did divorce him (what else can be understood in view of "remain unmarried?").

Paul provided the only scriptural recourse she had: "remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband."

Jesus addressed the situation of the putting away occurring for some reason other than fornication and said that the one putting away was at fault and that the put away one could not remarry without fornication (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). Paul's choice was all she "could do."

Enter convoluted logic:

Sam wrote:

(I don't understand why some brethren get hyper at the idea that a person can be married on one level [man's], but not on another level [God's]. If that's what Scripture indicates, that's the truth of the matter, regardless of "our" tradition or thinking....

Don reflects:

Sam's thinking and logic is emerging in the above statement. Why not say, one can be "bound to one and married to another?" There is scripture for this language and concept (Rom. 7: 2, 3). Sam in the above language is laying the foundation for the twisted conclusion that will come later.

Sam stated:

Given the fact that the unmarried woman in 1 Cor. 7.10-11 still has a husband, what recourse does her husband have if she should commit adultery?

Don answers:

Notice how Sam has now taken not a step from what Paul is discussing in I Corinthians 7: 10, 11, but a gigantic leap! Paul is not even discussing the eventuality of the woman committing fornication in remarriage to another and then her husband whom she put away being able to mentally (the only thing left) put her away and then being able himself to remarry without fornication. Talking about moving ahead, Sam has just broken every traffic law and is now speeding out of control, knocking down poles, signs, and everything else that gets in his path!

Sam's argument is based on the silence of Paul and flys in the face of Jesus' specific teaching.

Sam and the list, the man is a put away person. While Paul does not address the mate's remarriage to another and the plight of the put away mate, Jesus does, as I mentioned. Jesus said: "And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matt. 19: 9).

Notice Sam's proposed action:

1. Mate puts away innocent mate.
2. The putting away mate then marries another.
3. The put away mate can then put away and remarry without sin.

Notice Jesus' proposed action:

1. Mate puts away innocent mate
2. The putting away mate remarries.
3. The put away mate and the one who marries the put away commit adultery.

Based on the above thinking and maneuvering, Sam reaches the following
summary:

"Summary: I believe 1 Cor. 7.10-11 implies that some legally put away people can lawfully put away an unfaithful spouse and remarry with God's blessing."

Don remarks:

ALL I Corinthians 7: 10, 11 is authorizing is the woman who sinfully put away her husband to be reconciled to her husband, to whom she is still bound. There is a marked difference between the reconciliation of an estranged couple and a put away person, for whatever cause, putting away and marrying another (Matt. 19: 9). Sam, nice try, but you are going to have to do better than this.

When I can find a little extra time, I want to address another matter that I think needs some attention. Thank you for your time in reading this post.

Don Martin to the list:

I appreciate the posts various ones continue to make under the general theme of the Sheridan/Osborne debate position. Terence signed the following proposition in the affirmative:

"The Scriptures teach that biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one's respective society and that the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry."

I have been posting from a different slant the last two weeks on the MDR issue, expressing concern about going too far in the matter of the civil procedure. As I have said, I would not have signed the above proposition in the affirmative. Within the near future, I want to again change focus and take a look at what I consider to be the opposite extreme. I anticipated that by focusing on the two extremes and attempting to offer scriptural balance that it would be said, "Don Martin is contradicting himself." I also anticipated where Sam Peterson was headed with his question to the effect, "do you believe all put away people are forbidden remarriage?" In my answer to Sam I stated:

"I could mention the one who is no longer married ('put away' inferred) in I Corinthians 7: 10, 11 being 'remarried' to her ex husband, but that is really not germane to our discussion."

Sam has forcefully, some how, extracted from the text of I Corinthians 7: 10, 11 what he calls justification for an innocently put away person being able to put away for the cause of fornication and subsequently remarry without guilt.

Jason Reed has stated in a post today that he does not believe the woman of I Corinthians 7: 10, 11 actually put away her husband but simply separated from him. He understands "unmarried" to simply mean separated. While I am not in total agreement with Jason's post, I do appreciate his comments. They are certainly worthy of consideration.

Regardless of the issue of whether "unmarried" means separated or legally divorced, the text has nothing to do with the marriage to "another." I believe the marriage to "another" is the matter being considered by Jesus (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9).

There will always be peripheral differences between brethren on MDR. This present forced issue (Sheridan/Osborne debate) regarding the extent of the importance of civil procedure will never be fully agreed on among brethren, even thinking brethren. I believe that all should consider the applicable civil procedure as part of the biblical putting away act, but to consider it as synonymous is extreme, I am convinced.

Something else I have noticed from the responsive posts, no one has commented, at least, not in full, on my following statement to Sam regarding the typical no fault divorce commonly involved in most divorces today:

"Some have contended that in the exact circumstance as Joe and Jane, Jane's actions legally constitute putting away, even though Joe's name may still be considered proof as being the plaintiff. Some, who have more legal knowledge than I, have told me that the plaintiff and defendant situation in a divorce case is not simply legally established by the simple determination of "whose name appears on the document." "The courts are not interested in establishing blame or even who the plaintiff is....," they further state. If this is the case, why should the innocent even bother with the courts, you might ask? Again, civil law requires such, as I understand it, and it should be the innocent mate who petitions the court. The clear cut case I mention above is just further evidence that Jane is the one putting away and Joe is the put away, clearly in every sense of the word."

I offered the above statement in its original context in an effort to show that absolutely saying the "civil procedure is synonymous with biblical putting away" and that "the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry" is going out on the proverbial limb and we all knows what happens to that limb.

I started concentrated teaching and debate on the MDR issue in 1972, when the State of Texas (where I was then preaching) made serious changes in civil divorce that resulted in the no fault divorce laws now adopted by most, if not all, states. I am glad to see more study, finally, on the MDR issue, however, we must guard against extremes and allowing ourselves to be manipulated into positions that we cannot defend.

Don Martin to the list:

In studying dialectics for almost forty years, I have observed many times that every issue has its attendant extremes. Over time, these extremes become more pronounced and radical. Also, these extremes vary and assume different premises as time progresses. I see this happening within the current marriage, divorce, and remarriage controversy. The emerging extremes now involve brethren that are all known for conservatism. This most recent development is the most troubling type of circumstance. When this momentum starts, many find themselves in the middle, not fully agreeing with either opposing side. What makes it more confusing, alas, is both sides typically possess a lot of truth, truth carried too far in opposing directions.

I have dealt with the recent Sheridan/Osborne debate proposition and I have stated that I would not have signed it in the affirmative. Beginning with this post, I want to reverse my thrust and consider some statements made by my friend Ron Harbrook. I believe Ron has now clearly espoused an extreme position and is being instrumental in leading many away from what I view as the truth. Ron recently beyond all doubt brought his position to light on the MDR issue in Gospel Truths (April 2001 issue). Ron was asked to address the following situation and position:

"A husband decides to put away his wife and she begs him not to. He decides to go ahead and do it anyway. She goes to the church and elders and voices her opposition to it. The divorce is final. A few years later the husband remarries. She then goes before the church and elders and expresses to them that she is now scripturally putting him away. She can then remarry without sin."

Ron answers:

"As to your question, I see the problems and issues raised by a marriage under such circumstances and would not encourage such a remarriage, but there is a lot more to this matter than one theoretic question. Rather than making sweeping generalizations about all such cases, I try to patiently consider each situation on a case by case basis...." Ron then proceeds by making some of the same qualifying statements that I would make. The serious difference between Ron's answer and what I believe should have been the answer is this:

Ron immediately begins his answer, continues his answer, and concludes his answer by talking about the need of patience, tolerance, and laxity. Ron does not scripturally answer the question or directly comment on the consequent position but, instead, offers hope.

Being an amateur historian, Ron's "answer" is of historical importance and served as the impetus, in my opinion, for the rush toward the other extreme of the swinging pendulum.

Don Martin to the list:

In post one, I mentioned the question and position that was put to Ron Halbrook and Ron's "answer." It was obvious by all who read his response, I think, that Ron could tolerate the circumstance in the particular case of divorce and remarriage. "Don, how would you have answered the question?" I shall be glad to answer it and thus illustrate the difference between Ron's historic reply and mine. Here it is again:

"A husband decides to put away his wife and she begs him not to. He decides to go ahead and do it anyway. She goes to the church and elders and voices her opposition to it. The divorce is final. A few years later the husband remarries. She then goes before the church and elders and expresses to them that she is now scripturally putting him away. She can then remarry without sin."

Don answers:

There are a number of important points and facts contained in the example, facts that help and force a scriptural determination as to the plight of the wife.

(1). The husband decides to put away his wife.
(2). Adultery or fornication is not present.
(3). The divorce becomes a reality.
(4). A few years LATER the husband remarries.

Brethren and concerned reader, she is now a put away person. She would fall under the innocent put away (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). As such, she is not allowed to put away because the putting away has already occurred and she is a put away person (Ibid.). The fact that he subsequently remarries, then, is irrelevant. Also, the fact that she later "goes before the church and elders and expresses to them that she is now scripturally putting him away" is also irrelevant. The putting away is history, past and done. This is how I would have answered the above example and question.

Ron repeatedly mentions in his reply that he does not want to be accused of advocating or practicing the waiting game. I can sure see why Ron is concerned because I believe most who read the answer would immediately think that this is precisely what Ron is promoting. Ron's extension of hope is diametrically opposed to Jesus' plain teaching (Matt. 5: 32; 19: 9).

Now consider Matthew 19: 9:

A puts away B and marries C. A and C are in adultery, Jesus said. Now, B remarries and B and D are in adultery, Jesus said. "Oh, but B and D marry before A marries C," some interject. That is not what Jesus said! The natural sequence is A puts away B and marries C. B (the innocent put away party) then marries D). Result: B and D are in adultery.

I believe one reason Jesus taught as he did on this subject was to preclude the very situation for the waiting game practice. He did this by saying that once the putting away has occurred, the put away cannot marry another and to do so is fornication. As I have repeatedly affirmed, the put away, whether guilty or innocent, cannot marry another without sin.

I was very sorry when Ron answered the above question as he did. As usual, I am finding myself right in the middle of this growing controversy. However, I am used to this position.

Don Martin to the list:

I want to thank you for your interest in this troubling subject that is now dividing more churches and families, the subject of divorce and remarriage.

Based on past experiences, I want to now make an anticipatory post in which I address a common objection. I stated:

Now consider Matthew 19: 9:

A puts away B and marries C. A and C are in adultery, Jesus said. Now, B remarries and B and D are in adultery, Jesus said. "Oh, but B and D marry before A marries C," some interject. That is not what Jesus said! The natural sequence is A puts away B and marries C. B (the innocent put away party) then marries D). Result: B and D are in adultery.

I believe one reason Jesus taught as he did on this subject was to preclude the very situation for the waiting game practice. He did this by saying that once the putting away has occurred, the put away cannot marry another and to do so is fornication. As I have repeatedly affirmed, the put away, whether guilty or innocent, cannot marry another without sin.

Don states and comments on the objection:

As a rule, some one will object to the above by saying: "I just do not believe it is fair to teach that a mate who is godly and doing all she can to preserve the marriage can be placed in a hopeless circumstance as far as the possibility of remarriage is concerned by an ungodly mate who sinfully puts her away and then marries another!"

With this objection, I must agree. There are those who are severely mistreated by an ungodly mate and who unfairly are deprived of the benefits of marriage. However, how else could Jesus have presented his teaching on divorce and remarriage? Had Jesus allowed the circumstance for the put away to be able to marry another, the waiting game would be the way out for multitudes, to the point that divorce and remarriage would be a mockery.

"Go ahead and put me away, I, too, am sick of this marriage," many would reason, no doubt. In their mind, they would be thinking and plotting, "I just know he will remarry and I can then put him away for fornication and I can marry another." After all is said and done, if this had been what Jesus allowed and taught, only the guilty put away would be denied marriage to another.

Jesus had to teach as he did or a greater evil would have resulted. Jesus' teaching is as fair as it can be to the largest number of people. We see in Jesus' teaching much wisdom, promotion of godly attitudes, and the preservation of morality. It does follow, though, that one should be very careful and selective regarding whom they marry for a number of reasons, one being, an ungodly mate can place another in a position that can deprive them of marriage.

Don Martin to Ronnie Barnette and the list:

I am appreciative of the posts relative to my request that others comment on the signed proposition for the Sheridan/Osborne written debate. Ronnie quotes me and then asked:

(I wrote,dm): I have contended for many years that marriage and divorce possess the same basic components and elements, antithetically considered. For instance, with marriage there must be intent, declaration of intent, and conformity to all applicable civil law. Divorce, the opposite or undoing of marriage, must involve intent, declaration of intent, and conformity to all applicable civil laws. One is not married just because they will it; 'conversely, one is not divorced just because they think it (mental divorce) or experience it in their heart (put away in the heart).

Ronnie's question:

This is not a trick question. I am not trying to embarrass you (isn't it sad we have to put such disclaimers in sometimes?). I basically agree with your assessment of a divorce, that it is "antithetically considered" the opposite of a marriage. This is my question. For a marriage to be valid, "the intent, declaration of intent, and conformity to all applicable civil law" must held by both people. In a divorce, if one does not desire the divorce, where is the intent necessary? I ask this because I assume this could be an argument for "mental divorce" by the nonintending party who later after the civil divorce, where her/his mate filed for the divorce, she/he then gives her/his consent mentally.

Don comments:

Ronnie, you have made an intelligent observation. The same "basic" components are present in both marriage and the undoing of marriage, divorcement, I believe. However, there is not a complete antithetical situation because of the good point you make above.

While I do not recall encountering the view that biblical putting away necessitates the consent of both parties for it to be valid, there is probably the held extant belief. I do not just arbitrarily say this (not a complete antithetical situation), but I say this in view of I Corinthians 7: 12, 13 that demonstrates that "put away" is used without the consent of the one against whom the action is taken. However, she/he would still be a put away person.

As I have said before, every time "put away" occurs, the put away person is not allowed remarriage to another. This is true in all the considered scenarios: the innocent is put away, the guilty is put away, one is put away without consent, for instance (Matt. 5: 32; 19: 9, activation of the exception clause; I Cor. 7: 12, 13). (Of course, those who hold the view that the unbeliever can divorce the Christian and that the Christian can then remarry based on their understanding of I Corinthians 7: 15, which view I believe is fallacious, would argue that what I just affirmed is not true.)

Ronnie and the list, in order to argue for an exception in the parallel matter of marriage and divorce, there must be scriptural proof. For instance, one cannot successfully contend that, "yes, marriage involves conformity to applicable civil law, but divorcement begins, progresses, and finalizes without any conformity to civil law." If so, where is the scriptural precedent or teaching? A matter that is comparable, I believe, is the case of parables. Parables are basically the physical and spiritual antithetically considered. However, we know that there is not always a total antithetical situation, however, many, at least, of the basic "components" are antithetical.

Ronnie, thank you for your post. Please do not ever apologize for questioning anything I teach. As long as you do it in the manner that you just did, I greatly appreciate it. I know that I myself am not infallible and I want my teaching tested. Again, you made a valid and good point in your post.

Concerned reader, if you would like to read some in-depth material regarding the view that Jesus was only explaining Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9 in light of the Law of Moses and that these verses have no application today, please click on "The Gospels, Old Law or Jesus' Law?" Be sure to also read "The Truth about marriage" "The Truth about Remarriage" and "Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Questions and Answers" (click on to visit).