The following is a question / answer exchange between myself and Steven J. Wallace, which transpired from March 28–31, 2007 amongst several brethren within an e-mail circle.

The reader is strongly encouraged to take his/her time in a serious study of this entire discussion.

Due to the length of the exchange, only the questions, answers and related comments are pasted below to help the reader focus on the issue being discussed. – Jeff

Belknap’s Questions & Wallace’s Answers

Belknap’s Question # 1) Do you believe that it is possible for one spouse to wrongfully put away their mate (against the innocent mate's will) and it be considered a divorce in the “eyes of God,” – or are they still Biblically “married”?

Wallace’s Answer To Question # 1) Yes, I believe it is possible for a spouse to wrongfully put away their mate. It happens all the time. Where fornication is not a part of the original equation, then remarriage can never be done for either party at least as long as both shall live.

Steve, this is not what Ron Halbrook has publicly taught. Ron stated that after a wrongful divorce the couple are still married. This does not appear to be a difference in application to me, but rather a difference in doctrine. Please note Ron’s own words:

“And so, in conclusion from this, we learn that an unscriptural divorce releases neither party from marriage. When you have an unscriptural divorce, as men count it, it’s not so with God.” Ron Halbrook (MDR sermon preached in Wilkesville, OH; 6-14-90)

Moreover, in Ron’s charts http://www.truthmagazine.com/powerpoint/BALANCE-MaintainingTimesControversy-11-22-03.ppt on “Maintaining Balance” [last point at the bottom of chart (# 26)], he has publicly taught that it is not necessary for fornication to be part of “the original equation” for one to eventually employ a post-divorce “putting away” in order to remarry another while the first partner lives. In the aforementioned chart, Ron intimates that one is out of “balance” when he teaches “If Prospective Fornicator Gets Divorce Paper & Then Commits Adultery, Faithful Mate Not Remarry”

Such like quotes from brother Ron (and associates) are legion. I continue to marvel that you and several others who are closely associated with Ron take no issue over this teaching, even while expressing disagreement with it. From all I have seen, you have only praise for brother Halbrook and have charged me with erroneously portraying him as a false teacher.

You further put in writing:

While God may recognize such wrong divorces, that doesn’t mean he “approves” of such. By implication, Herodias divorced or divorced Philip. a) Philip may have been innocent of fornication and would therefore have been permitted to remarry if such were true. b) Herodias was guilty of adultery and was not permitted to be married. c) Herod was in fornication and was not permitted to be married to her (Mk. 6:17ff). It is equally possible for one to be married in the (eyes of God) and yet for it to be without approval.

“For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife; for he had married her” (Mk. 6:17).

Interestingly, Herodias is still called Philip’s “wife” while at the same time being “married” to Herod, viz. “he (Herod) had married her.” Likewise, I am curious, if you take your same approach with divorce that to the subject of marriage? Say for example, that Herod had never been married before Herodias. Would you then also bar him from ever marrying scripturally because he had married one who was incidentally unlawful to marry. Please cite the scripture(s) that authorizes such in either case.

Steve, you agree that a wrongful divorce is indeed a real divorce “in God’s eyes,” but then you advocate that put away individuals can also “put away” their bound mates who fornicate after the fact (such as Philip above), in order to remarry another while their original man/woman still lives. This seems to disagree with your answer to my first question when you wrote, “Where fornication is not a part of the original equation, then remarriage can never be done for either party at least as long as both shall live.”

Unfortunately, there is absolutely NO scripture for putting away after having been put away and your neglect to provide any scripture which would defend such a premise (within all of your “answers”) only underscores that fact.

The Terms “Husband” And “Wife”

Just because the terms “husband” and “wife” are used after the fact of an unapproved divorce does not constitute proof that the innocent person who “is put away” has authority to divorce their divinely obligated man /woman for post-divorce fornication. You need a very active imagination which does not mind ignoring one half of what Jesus taught on divorce and remarriage to conclude all of that (i.e. the “b” parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18).

Although the Greek words “aner” (man) and “gune” (woman) are sometimes translated as “husband” and “wife,” these words literally mean “man” and “woman” [i.e. the “man” whom God obligated to a certain woman, and the “woman” whom God joined to a certain man when they were lawfully married]. These exact same Greek words are also used to refer to one’s DEAD SPOUSE as well (Matthew 22:24-25, Acts 5:9; Romans 7:3, I Corinthians 7:11; 39; Cp. w. II Samuel 11:26; 12:9-10, 15).

When Jesus spoke of “her which is put away from her husband” (Luke 16:18), the Lord acknowledged that although the marriage was sundered, she was still bound to her man. Hence, any subsequent marriage to another (by either party) equals adultery (Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:39), even though it appears that her man wrongfully put her away and remarried first.

I Corinthians 7:2 states, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” We are to only “have” our “own” man/woman, not somebody else’s. But in I Corinthians 5:1, we learn that a son was having his father’s wife (i.e. woman).

Regarding the scenario question you were curious about, if Herod had never been married prior to Herodias, he never had his “own wife” (as per I Corinthians 7:2) – he only had his brother’s wife (woman). Hence, he was still “loosed” (or free, not “bound” to anyone). His marriage with the woman whom God had joined to his brother was adulterous. Thus, “to avoid fornication” he would be required to first divorce his adulterous partner, before he could lawfully marry an eligible mate. (Note that Matthew 5; 19; Mark 10 and Luke 16 pronounced subsequent marriages as adulterous, in the context of after the wrongful break-up of God-joined marriages, cf. Matthew 19:3, 6-9; Mark 10:7-9).

Belknap’s Question # 2) If you say they are still “married,” how do you reconcile your understanding to the Bible’s reference to such innocent persons as, “put away,” “divorced,” and “unmarried” - Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Lk. 16:18 and I Cor. 7:10-11?

Wallace’s Answer To Question # 2 – I am not saying they are still married, yet they are still considered one’s husband/wife. Herodias was “unmarried” to Philip, but was still considered Philip’s wife. How so? Because God “bound” them together. Men manage marriage; God controls the bond. Observe carefully:

“But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife” (1 cor. 7:11).

1)    She does depart

2)    Results in being “UNMARRIED”

3)    Yet may still be reconciled to “HER HUSBAND.”

There you have a woman divorced, no longer married, thus “unmarried” and yet still has a husband. How so? Because God bound them together! It is really so simple.

Belknap’s Comment To Wallace’s Answer To Question # 2) I agree with your comments here for the most part, but I believe that you do not fully comprehend the Greek word “aner” translated “husband” (I Corinthians 7:11). I believe the intent of the translators in using the word “husband” instead of “man” (the literal translation) was to help the reader make the right connection. Yes, he is still her “man” by divine obligation, but because the word “husband” is used, some deny that the marriage is absolutely and altogether sundered (chorizo, cf. Matthew 19:6). Yet, in verse 10, we learn that prior to the departure they were “gameo” (married), then, after the divorce they were “agamos” (unmarried) in verse 11. They both are now unmarried and/or divorced!

At this point (after Philip had been wrongfully divorced by his original wife, as you acknowledged), he would be the person Jesus addressed in the second parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18. As such, he would be prohibited from lawful marriage to another as long as his bound wife lives. However, just like I Corinthians 7:11 teaches, he would be authorized to reconcile with his own woman. No scripture authorizes divorced people to “put away” their bound man/woman for their obligated man’s/woman’s post-divorce fornication.

When the Lord addressed those who “put away” (or repudiate), their divinely bound man/woman, he was addressing those who sunder their “one flesh” (marriage) relationship (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3, 6, 9; cf. I Corinthians 7:10-11)! This cannot be done again (without reconciliation), after a divorce has been completed.

To advocate that this can be done after a divorce has taken place, is to pervert God’s word by taking the Lord’s teaching out of context.

Belknap’s Question # 3) If you say they are divorced (though still bound), please cite the scripture(s) that authorizes one who is what the Bible calls “divorced” or “put away” and “unmarried” to divorce their mate for the cause of fornication when it is committed after they have become divorced?

Wallace’s Answer To Question # 3 – I explained that in question 2. They may be “departed” or “sent away” and yet still have a “husband/wife.” That doesn’t negate the vow-abiding spouse’s right to remarry again because it was the fornication of the other which led to the divorce in the first place.

Belknap’s Comment To Wallace’s Answer To Question # 3) Steve, your answer to my question # 2 does not attempt to answer this question and provides no scripture whatsoever that authorizes one who is “divorced” or “put away” or “unmarried” to divorce their mate for post-divorce fornication. In fact, the one scripture you actually cited authorizes the direct opposite of post-divorce “putting away” for post-divorce fornication – your cited verse proves that reconciliation with one’s bound mate is the only Biblical marriage option for those who are wrongfully put away. This is exactly my point, and I thank you for proving it!

We have both acknowledged that God recognizes an innocent person as wrongfully put away, even against their will. Hence, the generic terms “apoluo,” “chorizo,” and “apheimi” describe both lawful and unlawful divorces. However, where we go our different ways is when you affirm the remarriage-ability of those who have been “put away” - yet in the divorce that put them away, they were not the one in the “a” portions of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 who put away their mate for the cause of fornication, but were in fact, the one who was put away in the “b” portions of those verses and Luke 16:18. Please note that Jesus only gave the exception clause to those who put away their one-flesh marriage partner for the cause of fornication! Steve, this is a very important detail that you seem to be neglecting. I care about the souls that I believe will be lost due to your teaching that results in the sin of adultery, and this is why God requires me to oppose it (Ephesians 5:11; Jude 3-4; II John 9-11).

In your last letter you stated, “I have never met Connie Adams, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. He showed me by his example that there are areas of application that we can disagree on and yet maintain fellowship. His example with Weldon Warnock have helped me see that two men can disagree (like Paul and Barnabas) and yet lift up each others’ hands.” However, brother Adams has clearly and publicly stated his belief that the doctrine which you and Weldon teach leads to adultery (Spiritual Death, Galatians 5:19-21) – and yet you think it is exemplary that he can “lift up” Weldon’s “hands” (cf. Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekiel 13:22)?! We are frequently warned about using the wrong examples in judgment (II Corinthians 10:12; III John 11), and against the respect of persons (Romans 2:11; Acts 10:34-35; I Timothy 5:20-21). I would venture to say that you did not have the same “respect” for those who lifted up brother Hailey’s hands when they understood him to be advocating adultery (Romans 2:1-2, 21-22) in the exact same way that brother Adams is lifting up the hands of those teach this doctrine which he deems as adulterous.

Jesus gave the exception clause to those who were divinely OBLIGATED and MARRIED, NOT just divinely OBLIGATED. No scripture authorizes one whom Jesus describes as having been “put away” from their obligated mate to subsequently put away, whether they are still called “husband”/“wife” or not. Contrariwise, the only scriptures that address those who have been (rightfully or wrongly) put away from a lawful one-flesh marriage relationship are the second parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18. They all specifically state that remarriage to another is unequivocally ADULTERY (with the understood implication that their original man/woman is still alive, Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:39).

Belknap’s Question # 4) When Jesus addressed those who put away and mentioned the Jews’ national procedure of putting away with giving “a writing of divorcement” (cf. Deuteronomy 24:1), He revealed the exception clause (Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9). Within this context, was he addressing those who sunder the “one flesh” (marriage) relationship or was He also including an action that was accomplished after the marriage was already sundered?

Wallace’s Answer To Question # 4 – by “national procedure” I don’t know what you mean. It was to be recognized throughout the land, but neither the national government, nor the state, nor the local government took part in those divorces. It was always the husband alone who wrote the certificate of divorce. Moses gave commands for individuals and for tribes and for the nation at large. Similarly, “pure and undefiled religion before God” of visiting widows and orphans in their time of need is not a “national procedure” but an individual one (Jas. 1:27). It is a law that all Christians are to submit to but is only carried out by individuals.  Further, Jesus revealed the exception clause in the context of punishing the widespread liberal school of thought justifying trivial divorce or divorce for “any cause” (Mat. 19:3). If one ignores or perverts the meaning in that passage, then some erroneous conclusions may be promoted.

Not only is the context of punishing the popular and liberal school of thought that a man could divorce his wife for “any reason” as long as he gave her a certificate of divorce, it discusses separating what God Himself had joined together.  Jesus outlined reasons why He hated their liberal thoughts on divorce. 1) Mankind was created “male and female” (v. 4). 2) Man was to leave mother and father, not wife (v. 5). Man was to be joined to his wife (v. 5), not separate. Man was to become one flesh with his wife (conjugal relationship) and not separate (v. 5). Note: man was to leave, then join (marry) then become one flesh with their wife. None of those three particulars inherently required civil procedure when they were done. What government existed when Adam married Eve. . .when Cain took a wife. . .when Seth married. . .etc. There was none but God alone. Yet, they were joined together by law (God’s) nonetheless. Where governments of today place regulations and such on marriage, they are to be obeyed UNLESS they violate scripture. The “Joining” in verse 5 is being glued and stuck together (also found here: Acts 5:36; Eph. 5:31). God then “binds” them (v. 6, translated “joins”). They are bound together. A man is bound to his wife. Can a man divorce his wife and still be “bound.” Yes as I have showed in the previous email with Herod and 1 Corinthians 7.

Directly now: Jesus is discussing the separation of two by divorce. The marriage is sundered not by divorce lawyers and courtrooms, but when the husband chose to send his wife out. Please show me where those under Deuteronomy 24 and the context of Matthew 19 sent their wives away with lawyers/courtrooms/judges being inherent to the practice?

Belknap’s Comment To Wallace’s Answer To Question # 4) Steven, for all the words you used, you never answered my question. I asked: “Within this context, was He addressing those who sunder the “one flesh” (marriage) relationship or was He also including an action that was accomplished after the marriage was already sundered?” It could easily have been answered in one sentence, yet in three long paragraphs, you never once addressed it. Moreover, after sidestepping my question, you unbelievably asked another question of me. Questions are not answers! (I hope that all who are reading this exchange will “hear” exactly what brother Wallace’s silence to my actual questions is saying, loud and clear.)

By the Jews’ ‘national procedure’ of putting away, I am referring to the law of Moses which was a system of theocracy. According to Random House Unabridged Dictionary, “theocracy” means: “1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. 2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission. 3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.”

Because God was “the supreme civil ruler,” He had the power to dictate HOW a divorce was accomplished! You’re right, “neither the national government, nor the state, nor the local government took part in those divorces. It was always the husband alone who wrote the certificate of divorce.” Yet, the reason why a divorce was done exactly this way was because this was the God-ordained “national procedure” of putting away for the Jews. All this discussion revolving around “civil” protocol reminds me of the hand gun controversy. In an attempt to outlaw gun ownership by civilians, liberals try to con us into thinking that hand guns are killers when in reality, guns are only “tools” that people use to commit murder.

Furthermore, I would have to disagree with your emphasis that “Jesus revealed the exception clause in the context of punishing the widespread liberal school of thought justifying trivial divorce or divorce for ‘any cause’ (Mat. 19:3).” This may have been part of the Lord’s intent, but from verse 4 to “the exception clause” revealed in verse 9, Jesus bypassed the teaching of the rabbis to what God said (was written) “at the beginning.” We do not know exactly what the Pharisees had in mind when they were “tempting him” (verse 3, cf. I Corinthians 2:11). However what we do know, is that Jesus was teaching the will of God on MDR and we cannot dismiss the importance of part of what He said (the “b” portions of the aforementioned MDR verses) because it does not “jive” with our suppositions about why He said it.

Moreover, when Adam and Eve married, as well as Cain, Seth, etc., etc; they all married according to the recognized practice of that day and time. (God obviously taught the patriarchs about marriage, for they did not come up with the idea themselves.) Different dispensations have different authorities to obey (i.e. systems of theocracy, monarchy and/or democracy).

Belknap’s Question # 5) Would you please provide a book, chapter and verse which reveals a biblical pattern for someone to “put away” their divinely-obligated man/woman after their one flesh (marriage) relationship had already been sundered?

Wallace’s Answer To Question # 5: Please show me the pattern of methods/protocol from the scriptures that those original recipients of Jesus’ teaching were to do to divorce their mate. Please give the detailed pattern for divorce protocol. Recall where there is no pattern established, we cannot bind a certain procedure. Where do the papers, lawyers and courtrooms come into play according to the scriptures? For more information pertaining to your question of divorce and covenant breaking click here: http://www.sunnysidechurchofchrist.com/id25.html and note that some have actually taken your doctrine to a level that I am sure you would never go—placing the spouse under conjugal submission to the fornicating spouse until the civil procedure of courtrooms, judges, papers, lawyers was complete. In actuality, his fornication automatically releases her from such a duty.

Belknap’s Comment To Wallace’s Answer To Question # 5) Again, note the obvious absence of scripture from your “answer,” which was not an answer, but a question of me. The question never mentioned “methods/protocol” and the answer obviously did not hinge on our agreement of “methods/protocol.” There is obviously a basic biblical pattern for someone to ‘put away’ their divinely-obligated man/woman (i.e. first they must be married, then they get a divorce which is authorized or not.) Regardless of what the “methods/protocols” for marriage and divorce were and are, once one has been wrongfully put away (as you acknowledge they can be), where is the “book, chapter and verse which reveals a biblical pattern for someone to ‘put away’ their divinely-obligated man/woman after their one flesh (marriage) relationship had already been sundered?” This is not hard – all I asked for was just one verse that authorizes it (via statement of fact, command, approved example or necessary inference), and your inability to provide one has again manifested itself loud and clear! You provided no scripture because there is none. This conspicuous absence again only serves to reinforce my contention that there is no scriptural authority for post-divorce “putting away.”

II Timothy 1:13, “Hold fast the form (‘THE PATTERN,’ NKJV, ASV, RSV) of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.”

Where there is no pattern, Steven, there is NO authority. God has commanded us to obey His ministers regarding social protocol. For Paul wrote, “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Romans 13:2).

Belknap’s Question # 6) Since you believe that the Bible actually authorizes “putting away” for fornication after the first (wrongful divorce), then why discuss civil procedure, when you could immediately settle this entire controversy by revealing the scripture which teaches post-divorce “putting away”?

Wallace’s Answer To Question # 6: I don’t know that I do advocate that such is important. All I maintain is that while the civil divorce may be initiated and fueled by the fornicator, that such doesn’t negate the right for the innocent one to remarry. Like the “certificate” of the Old Testament, the civil procedure of today only verifies/certifies what actually went on. When you find people in the church who are divorce and remarried, do you inquire “why” they divorced and remarried or “how” they divorced and remarried?

Belknap’s Comment To Wallace’s Answer To Question # 6) Steven, you have again side-stepped my question. I didn’t ask whether or not you believe discussing the civil procedure is important. I already know what you “maintain.” Moreover, I did not request that you ask me another question. All I asked is that you reveal the scripture that authorizes what you “maintain” (to settle this issue) – that a putting away after one is put away is recognized in scripture. Again, it is a very simple question which you will not and cannot answer.

Steven, just think: I would shut down my website for good and apologize to those whose doctrines I have exposed (and I know you would love to see that happen) if you would only share with me one verse which commands, gives an approved example, states a fact or necessarily implies an approved “putting away” and lawful marriage to another for one who has already been put away while their God-joined mate lives. Yet, the absence of scripture from your “answers” is deafening.

I beg you to please take the emotionalism out of your answer above and please let the fact that you have NO AUTHORITY to give for post-divorce “putting away” sink in, and then do something about it (Matthew 3:8).

Wallace’s Questions & Belknap’s Answers

Wallace’s Question # 1) Does the teaching of Jesus on “putting away” apply to all nations and all cultures? 1a) If “yes,” does it mandate that there must be civil procedures in every case?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 1) When teaching on “putting away,” Jesus applied it to “whosoever” (cf. Matthew 4:23; I Corinthians 7:10; 14:37).

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 1a) Putting away/asunder is WHAT someone does to their marriage partner. HOW it is accomplished (tool or agency) is an entirely different subject. For example: Romans 7:4 tells us that we are “married” to Christ. The procedure to accomplish the “ceremony” is a different issue altogether (Ephesians 5:25-26, 30-32; Galatians 3:27-28).

Although I have never argued that a divorce must be accomplished in a “court house,” “all nations and all cultures” are unequivocally commanded to submit to their civil authorities (Romans 13:1-5; I Peter 2:13-17; Titus 3:1)! Therefore, if a society recognizes broom-jumping as the accepted protocol by which one becomes married, and backward broom-jumping as the procedure by which one becomes divorced, then when one employs those culturally-recognized and accepted “procedures” with the intent to marry or divorce, they are married or divorced (right or wrong)!

You will notice that Jesus inferred compliance to socially accepted “procedures” regarding marriage and divorce when he spoke of relatives as being “in law”(s):

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law (# 3565, numphe) against her mother in law  (# 3994, penthera). 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Cf. Mt. 8:14; 10:35; Mk. 1:30;  Lk. 4:38; 12:53; Jn. 3:29; 18:13; Rev. 18:23; 21:2, 9; 22:17

Steven, you are not advocating that we all become “out-laws,” are you? An “out law” is defined as:

“One excluded from the benefits and protection of the law; one under sentence of outlawry; hence, a disorderly person living in defiant violation of the law; a habitual criminal; also, an untamed or untamable horse or other animal.—To deprive of the benefits and protection of the law, as a person; proscribe; also, to remove from legal jurisdiction, or deprive of legal force. – out’law-ry, The act or process of outlawing, or the state of being outlawed; also, disregard or defiance of the law.” The New Century Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 1209

Note the teaching in II Corinthians 8:21, “Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.”  Post-divorce “putting away” is neither recognized nor approved of by any scripture (in the sight of the Lord), as is evident from the conspicuous absence of scripture to prove your assertions.  Neither is it recognized/acknowledged in the sight of men. Yet the Lord commands honesty in the sight of both God and man. Cf. Romans 12:17b

Wallace’s Question # 2) Does the teaching of Jesus on “putting” away apply to civilizations where “divorce” is not recognized by the government? Wally Little says “no.” I say “yes.” What do you say?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 2) When brethren start asking “what if” questions using the most extreme and emotionally-charged scenarios, it does nothing to clarify scriptural teaching, but obscures it!  If they wanted scriptural clarification, they would go to scripture and not scenarios that invariably involve someone who is suffering due to another’s actions.

We are commanded to respect and obey the civil authorities, for God has placed them in power to rule over us (Romans 13:1-5; I Peter 2:13-17; Titus 3:1), and to disobey them is to disobey God. According to scripture, the accepted practice of each civilization should be the standard regarding social protocol, whatever it may be. (There is never an instance of marriage or divorce recorded in the Bible which was not a matter of public record and acknowledgement among the people of that civilization.)

Did not such a person who married in such circumstances KNOW the consequences (i.e. that “divorce” is not recognized” in that country’s government)? Should one not count the cost in such circumstances? Steven, my heart cries out for those who suffer unjustly, but Jesus taught that unfortunate circumstances may cause some to make “themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matthew 19:12)! In other words, sometimes obedience to God’s law necessitates suffering wrong (I Peter 3:14, 17; 4:19). Why not trust in the providence of God instead of human wisdom (Matthew 6:8; cf. II Corinthians 12:9-10; Philippians 4:13)?

Jesus’ teaching regarding the liberty (not command) to eat all meats was rescinded (in certain circumstances) by commands outlined in I Corinthians 8:9-13; 10:27-33. Paul even stated, “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” Likewise, one cannot violate God’s command to obey the civil authorities (Romans 13:1-5; I Peter 2:13-17; Titus 3:1) who prohibit divorce in that country (if that is the case), in order to avail himself of a God-given liberty (not requirement) to put away a one-flesh marriage partner for fornication.

There may be circumstances in which it is impossible to keep man’s civil laws without violating God’s. In this instance, we must OBEY God rather than men. But there is a difference between obedience to a command and availing oneself of a liberty, when it would necessitate violation of a command.

Wallace’s Question # 3) Did Isaac need a legal certificate to marry Rebekah (in the eyes of God). 3a) If “YES” please cite the scripture 3b) If “NO” were you the one who added “(However you get married in a culture; requires that civil action to obtain a divorce.)” in Morris’ response? 3c) If “NO” do you also accept that a legal procedure is not inherent to divorce?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 3) Isaac simply followed the socially-recognized procedure of his day. Hence, all in that society recognized him as being wedded at the time of their marriage. However, procedures sometimes change with dispensations. Deuteronomy 24 changed the socially-recognized procedure of divorcement for the Jews after the Mosaic decree was written.

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 3b) I did not write anything to you prior to the questions I asked you.

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 3c) Please see my answer to your question # 5.

Wallace’s Question # 4) Do you forbid a woman (vow-abiding) whose fornicating, marital-bed desecrating, husband first sprang divorce papers upon her the right to remarry? If no, how do you reconcile passages like Matthew 19:9?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 4) I have no power of my own authority to “forbid” anything any more than you have power of your own to “allow” anything (regarding religious practices). Moreover, I have never taught that one must be the “first” to file for divorce. (If you had only read a small portion of my material over the last seven years you would know that.) There is a difference in filing for divorce and the divorce itself (case in point: one may file for divorce, then have a change of heart and decide to remain married).

However, if the “vow-abiding” woman does not exercise the authorized action to put away her man for fornication prior to becoming put away herself, then she is the one whom Jesus described as “put away from her husband,” (Lk. 16:18; cf. Matthew 19:9) and as such, it is Jesus who “forbids” her marriage to another. I am simply reiterating His instruction regarding those who are put away.

Wallace’s Question # 5) Is civil protocol an absolute necessary part in establishing the meaning of “apoluo.”

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 5) Obviously the words “apoluo,” “chorizo” and “aphiemi” (all used in the context of divorce) are generic. Regarding divorce, they would include lawful (approved) as well as unlawful (unapproved) actions toward one’s marriage partner. Moreover, they would include whatever procedure is socially-accepted in any culture in which it was employed (for instance, backward broom-jumping). [Remember: there must be honesty in the sight of all men as well as God, II Corinthians 8:21.] Hence, once a spouse employs that socially-recognized procedure (regardless of whether right or wrong), then one has put away his/her mate, and the other becomes the put away person (as described in the 2^nd parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18). After a wrongful divorce, the two remain bound (divinely obligated) to each other – though not married.

Wallace’s Question # 6) Does Jesus bind a certificate of divorce today? If yes, please cite the scripture?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 6) It seems a recurrent theme among your questions that you are trying to get around the finality of our socially-recognized and accepted procedure of divorce in this culture. However, if our own socially-recognized procedure for marriage was broom-jumping, and backward broom-jumping for divorce, would you acknowledge that the innocent, “vow-abiding” woman whose “marital bed-desecrating” husband divorced her (by jumping over the broom backwards) is now the one “which is put away from her husband” and thus becomes an adulteress when she marries another (as per Luke 16:18)? Or would you be asking me, “Does Jesus bind backward broom-jumping for divorce today? If yes, please cite the scripture?”

Thus, the discussion over “procedure” is not relevant. What is relevant is: A) whether or not you acknowledge that one who is wrongfully divorced is nonetheless divorced in God’s eyes, even while still obligated to the man or woman that God joined him/her to (and you have told me that you do), and consequently, B) whether or not you accept Jesus’ teaching regarding the one who is divorced from their God-joined mate, as per Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b; Luke 16:18b; cf. Romans 7:2-3 (obviously not).

Contending that a wrongfully put away person can subsequently “put away” the one who has already put them away is a concept that is totally foreign to the scriptures! You, yourself did not even attempt to prove that it was authorized when you responded to my own question # 6.

If “a certificate of divorce” is a necessary component of the socially-accepted and recognized procedure of our culture (just like driving, fishing/hunting and other licenses are required), then we must fulfill the requirements of God’s word to be in compliance to HIS divinely appointed civil authorities (powers that be).

I could just as easily ask you to “please cite the scripture” for the requirement to have a driving license to drive, or a fishing/hunting license to fish or hunt. What about a license to practice medicine? The SAME scriptures which require compliance with the civil mandates to obtain any of those other civil licenses for participation in those things, require civil licenses for marriage/divorce as well. If you were to be consistent in your reasoning, then you would have to deny the need for ALL such required licenses.

We are warned in scripture about those who would “resist” and “despise” the powers/authorities that be (Romans 13:2; II Peter 2:10; Jude 8).

Wallace’s Question # 7) While I am asking questions, I will throw this one in there perhaps for my own future-personal use. Does God hate each and every single divorce? Please give references?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 7) God does not hate every divorce. God hates wrongful divorces, such as when one is “dealing treacherously” with their divinely obligated spouse as per Malachi 2:14-16. Although He is not pleased when a lawful divorce transpires, it is only because the sin of fornication has caused the break-up of a lawful marriage. Moreover, God is in fact well-pleased with the divorces of those who are involved in adulterous marriages, as evidence of fruits worthy of repentance.

4/9/2007 Steven Wallace to Don Martin:

“Again, our approach to define “put away” has to be consistent and hold water in other nations with other procedures. If it is saying “I put you away” three times (Muslim states), then how are we to treat those innocent of fornication who were in fact put away by their fornicating husbands by them saying “I put you away”? If it is the “first to backwards broom jump” then Jesus’ law still says the same thing.”

“Further, the idea that a fornicator can put his spouse away and forever bar her from remarriage is not addressed or stated in the scriptures. All that is stated is that when one puts away, except for fornication, he commits adultery when he remarries (Matt. 19:9, 5:32). That implies that one may put away for fornication and not be committing adultery. It nowhere implies that if the fornicator is the most active in the courthouse that the innocent cannot put away and remarry. The procedure is in fact not addressed and I believe the best course of action is in keeping silent where the Bible is silent and resist the temptation to legislate for God.”

“Finally, I am leery of a doctrine that subjects the innocent vow-abiding mate losing her right to pursue another marriage simply by the speed and level of activity of a godless fornicator by the standard of human devised protocol.”

Wallace’s Final Rebuttal

Jeff:

…I said I would not respond but your material is so ridiculous that I felt compelled to send one last reply. This will be my last and final reply, however….

---------------------------

Wallace’s Rebuttal) I have not sidestepped any of your questions. You are correct that I do not consider Ron a false teacher. He is not. If he does teach false doctrine, then I will be glad to point that out to him or anyone else. Ron teaches only one person can lawfully divorce and remarry—those who put their spouse away for fornication. There are differences in application that different brethren have to resolve for themselves over various scenarios.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, your statement above affirms that you agree with Ron’s specific quotes which I had provided in the very context you were responding to (i.e. “that an unscriptural divorce releases neither party from marriage,” and his contention that one is out of “balance” when he teaches that “If Prospective Fornicator Gets Divorce Paper & Then Commits Adultery, Faithful Mate Not Remarry.”) Moreover, since in the context of these quotes by Ron, you boldly state that he is not a false teacher, it only serves to prove your belief that Ron’s cited quotes do not contain any falsehood (necessarily inferring that they conveyed truth), and that you intended to deceive me with your contradictory answer to my very first question: “Yes, I believe it is possible for a spouse to wrongfully put away their mate. It happens all the time. Where fornication is not a part of the original equation, then remarriage can never be done for either party at least as long as both shall live.”

Either Ron’s doctrine is true or it is false – you cannot have it both ways. Your above quote implies that you believe what Ron taught in his aforementioned quotes is unauthorized, yet you deny that he is a false teacher. This is inconsistent.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) To you on this list, I am glad that Jeff admitted in so many words that civil procedure doesn’t inherently constitute “divorce” or “marriage.” If it could happen in other countries or civilizations without governmental regulations/laws and still be legitimate, then it is not inherently dependent for us today to impregnate Jesus’ terminology with American definitions. Now perhaps one day Jeff will see that the basis of his charges against good men as being false teachers is simply because of his present abode in America and not because of anything that is written.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, It is absurd to say that I “admitted” “that civil procedure doesn’t inherently constitute ‘divorce’ or ‘marriage,’ for I have never stated that it did. Please read again what I wrote, which is consistent with what I have ALWAYS taught: “Although I have never argued that a divorce must be accomplished in a ‘court house,’ ‘all nations and all cultures’ are unequivocally commanded to submit to their civil authorities (Romans 13:1-5; I Peter 2:13-17; Titus 3:1)! Therefore, if a society recognizes broom-jumping as the accepted protocol by which one becomes married, and backward broom-jumping as the procedure by which one becomes divorced, then when one employs those culturally-recognized and accepted ‘procedures’ with the intent to marry or divorce, they are married or divorced (right or wrong)!”

Hence, my teaching is indeed “because of” something “that is written.” “American definitions” may not be specifically mentioned in scripture, but the New Testament is abundantly clear regarding the necessity to submit to the powers that be – except in cases where submission to civil law would cause one to sin! All rebels (outlaws) who reject the protocols of the powers that God has ordained shall lose their souls (Romans 13:2).

There are only two reasons I can think of that you and others (who espouse and/or defend post-divorce “putting away”) insist upon ignoring all relevant aspects of this controversy while dwelling on a non-issue such as “civil procedure”: 1) to attempt to prove that a wrongful divorce does not really make the one who was put away, a “put away” person who commits adultery upon marriage to another (as outlined by Jesus’ decree that, “whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband doth commit adultery”); and/or 2) You think the reason for my opposition against post-divorce “putting away” is simply because there is not a civil law to accomplish it after a wrongful divorce has already taken place.

If you get nothing else out of this exchange, please let the following points sink in:

1) Jesus taught that it is possible for the innocent to be wrongfully put away / divorced / unmarried from their God-joined man/woman (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; I Corinthians 7:10-11).

2) In the same context of sinful divorce, Jesus called the woman who was wrongfully put away, “her that is put away from her husband” (Luke 16:18b).

3) Jesus said that “whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband doth commit adultery.” (Luke 16:18b).

4) For the one who had been involved in a God-joined marriage and then is put away, there is no exception stated to the “b” parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Luke 16:18. [However I Corinthians 7:11 specifies that the two may be reconciled after a wrongful divorce. Furthermore, Romans 7:2-3 teaches that death releases one from the obligation that God had joined upon the couple (even though they may have been wrongfully sundered).]

NOW HEAR THIS: The reason that I oppose post-divorce “putting away” is NOT because it isn’t available via civil procedure! Even if you and your associates became legislators and instituted a state law that sanctioned a civil procedure for post-divorce “putting away,” I would still oppose it. Why? Because the scriptures clearly teach that the third party who marries a put away person (in the context of the break-up of a God-joined marriage and while still bound) commits adultery. Moreover, as established by a Bible pattern of the most basic sort, all instances of people marrying in the NT were single or divorced; all instances of people divorcing in the NT were those who were married. This is not a difficult concept! There is NO (not one instance) SCRIPTURAL PATTERN (nor authority of any kind) in which one who “is put away” later “puts away.” One who speaks as the Bible speaks (I Thessalonians 2:4; I Peter 4:11), and is silent where the Bible is silent will therefore not attempt to justify post-divorce “putting away;” much less a subsequent marriage to another while their bound man/woman is alive! Such teaching invades the silence of God!

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Unfortunately for Jeff, there is no scripture that shows the pattern of civil protocol defining “put away” and what a Christian MUST do. Further, Jeff has failed to produce one passage that shows that God approves/accepts/authorizes a guilty fornicator to put away the innocent. Jeff has failed to produce one passage that shows the innocent cannot remarry if the guilty is the first to the courthouse. In all of Jeff’s writings, he failed to cite one example, one command or one necessary inference in which God takes away the innocent one’s right to remarry if the fornicator is the fastest to put away. Interestingly, he has limited God’s word and exception to civil procedure, even if our procedure defined divorce a backwards broom jumping! Interesting indeed! More on that later. Then he calls anyone a false teacher who doesn’t connect the dots the way he thinks they should be connected? Simply amazing!

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, you state that I have “failed to produce one passage that shows that God approves/accepts/authorizes a guilty fornicator to put away the innocent.” Obviously, the reason for this “failure” (?) is because I do not believe nor have I ever taught that God approves, accepts or authorizes a guilty fornicator to put away! The Bible does not authorize it any more than it authorizes the putting away of a God-joined mate when no fornication has taken place by either party. However, in Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, we learn that Jesus undeniably acknowledges that such sinful divorces can be – and are – perpetrated against mates who have not committed fornication. Moreover, in that context, He decrees the unfortunate consequences for both parties when the “one flesh” marriage relationship has been wrongfully severed.

Steven, when you asked me in your first question “Does the teaching of Jesus on “putting away” apply to all nations and all cultures?” I stated that the Lord “applied it to ‘whosoever’ (cf. Matthew 4:23; I Corinthians 7:10; 14:37).” Evidently, you do not believe that since you wrote, “In all of Jeff’s writings, he failed to cite one example, one command or one necessary inference in which God takes away the innocent one’s right to remarry if the fornicator is the fastest to put away.” Steven, note what Jesus clearly stated as fact – not just once, but three times – regarding those who were put away from their lawful mates, in cases where fornication had been committed and where NO fornication had taken place:

Matthew 5:32, “…and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Matthew 19:9, “…and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Luke 16:18, “…and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

Although these are the very words of Jesus Christ, you have rejected them in favor of your own think-sos, stating, “I am leery of a doctrine that subjects the innocent vow-abiding mate losing her right to pursue another marriage simply by the speed and level of activity of a godless fornicator by the standard of human devised protocol.” Such an example of reliance on human reasoning is why Jesus stated within this context, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” Matthew 19:11

In order to properly understand what a text does teach, it’s helpful to first eliminate what it does not teach. When the Lord spoke of those who put away, He was speaking of those who sunder the “one flesh” (marriage) relationship (cf. Matthew 19:3, 6, 9; cp. w. 5:31-32). Therefore, post-divorce “putting away” (of which the Bible speaks nothing, cf. Hebrews 7:14) is an “application” that does not fit within the above statement in any way, shape or form!

Moreover, the discernment of WHO Jesus is addressing in a context is essential (cf. II Timothy 2:15)! Obviously, the one who “is put away” for a cause other than fornication is not the one who “putteth away” for fornication and is given the right to marry another. To claim that the one who “is put away” can later become the one who “putteth away” in these verses makes about as much sense as claiming that the woman (who is spoken of in these verses) can become the man, or claiming that the one who puts away for a cause other than fornication can become the one who later puts away for fornication.

When considering the Lord’s teaching in the first halves of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, we read about the one (man or woman, not both) who puts away (i.e. who sunders the lawful, “one flesh” relationship). The exception clause to put away and marry another is only addressed to the one who sunders the “one flesh” God-joined relationship “for fornication.”

Furthermore, I am not ashamed to say that I believe “anyone” is a false teacher when they teach a so-called “application” which directly opposes the Lord’s decree: that “whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (all others things being properly understood; cf. I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39; Romans 7:2-3.) See Romans 16:17-18; Galatians 1:8-9; II John 9-11. Moreover, keep in mind Steven, that even brother Connie Adams (whom you highly commend) publicly taught that the doctrine regarding a post-divorce “putting away” leads to ADULTERY! If you commend one who teaches what leads precious souls to adultery, and then argue that we should treat him as a faithful brother instead of a false teacher, it places you in the same condemnation. Ron Halbrook’s adulterous doctrine is no more innocent than Homer Hailey’s!

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Brother Belknap complains against some teaching that an innocent mate may remarry even if her first husband was the fastest to the courthouse and carried through the divorce. Not only does his reasoning set aside the commandment of God to keep his tradition of “speed” versus “longsuffering” and “methods” versus “cause,” but it also breeds inconsistency with his own teaching. His reasoning is because the innocent one is “put away” and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery. But then Jeff flip flops when the scenario is turned to an original marriage. He allows Herod, if Herod was never married before Herodias, to marry again because Herod only had someone else’s wife and did not have his legitimate woman. But Jeff, PLEASE SEE: Should I create a website www.mentalmarriage.com dedicated to one pet doctrine of “MENTAL MARRIAGE” and label you as a “Mental Marriage” Advocate? Jeff, Jesus said, “…and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery” (Matt. 5:32)

Sorry Steven, no “flip flops” here. Consistently, I have only taught that unmarried-loosed men/women are authorized to marry and that only lawfully (bound) married men/women are authorized to put away for fornication and remarry another while their previous God-joined marriage partner still lives (Matthew 5:32; 19:9).

Your accusation of inconsistency because I do not apply Christ’s teaching that “he who marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” to the Herod/Herodias scenario is patently ridiculous. Obviously, Matthew 19:9 follows verse 6, where Jesus unequivocally revealed that He was discussing the context of “What therefore God hath joined together…”

Your one-size-fits-all application of Jesus’ teaching to Herod and Herodias’ scenario indicates that you believe Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:6, 9 and Luke 16:18 (whose “a” portions disallow putting away) should be equally applied to those in adulterous marriages (who are required to put away).

As such, if you were consistent and said that the “a” portions of the verses also applied to the Herod / Herodias scenario, then you also have Christ condemning the divorce/repentance of adulterous marriages. Who can believe it?

Note that Matthew 5:32 teaches that an unauthorized divorce causes one’s mate to commit adultery, whereas in Herod/Herodias’ case, it was an unauthorized marriage that was causing the adultery.) Moreover, Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9 and Luke 16:18 pronounced the subsequent (not original) marriages as adulterous, after the wrongful break-up of a GOD-JOINED marriage (cf. Mt.19:6, 9; Mk. 10:9, 11-12; Rom. 7:2-3).

Since the teaching in Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18 is obviously forbidding divorce – it cannot apply to opposite situations where remaining together is forbidden.

Frankly to ask the question, “Should I create a website www.mentalmarriage.com dedicated to one pet doctrine of ‘MENTAL MARRIAGE’ and label you as a ‘Mental Marriage’ Advocate?” manifests unawareness on your part! Not only do I teach that Herod would be allowed to lawfully marry after putting Herodias away (assuming he was not otherwise bound by the law of God); but if he chose to marry, he would be obliged to comply with the civil protocol for marriage. Just as there is no authority for a “Mental Marriage,” there is absolutely no authority for your second (post-divorce) “putting away” (“before God in purpose of heart since the divorce has already taken place, legally speaking.” Weldon Warnock).

Moreover Steven, if you really want to start a website to expose the false doctrine of “mental marriage,” I have a few quotes to get you started from someone who really does believe and teach it, as opposed to myself, who teaches against it:

“Marriages are bound by God, not government (Matt. 19:6) and government can no more dissolve a marriage than it can create one.” Mike Willis, Editor’s Reply, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce, A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis (p. 35)

“But brother Bragwell fears the consequences by saying that two people in the back seat of a car may decide they are married and proceed to commit fornication. Is this an emotional argument? It certainly is not a scriptural argument! A scriptural argument would address what is necessary for a marriage covenant to be made. What was necessary for Adam and Eve to become one? What was necessary for Isaac and Rebekah to become one?” Mike Willis, Editor’s Reply, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce, A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis (p. 39)

“One needs to be careful not to so define marriage as to bind his own social, cultural environment as the law of God. However, one should notice that the problem which brother Bragwell wishes to avoid has not been solved by government. How do I know if the two people living across the street from me are married?...I can only determine that from talking to them.” Mike Willis, Editor’s Reply, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce, A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis (p. 39)

Wallace’s Rebuttal) If Herod was divorced by Herodias, he should not be allowed to marry again because “whoever marries one who is divorced commits adultery.” You have taken that phrase and misused it to a setting that Jesus’ was not addressing, so I suppose I can too! Jeff, is the marriage not “real” between Herod and Herodias? Is the divorce not real for Herod and Herodias for “whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery?” Is it not real? It may not be right, but it is real and so if they get a divorce to get out of adultery, then they should never be able to marry again! If not, why not? This is precisely the approach and reasoning that you take with divorce, so why should I not create a site and label you a false teacher for not agreeing with my absurd position? Show me the New Testament pattern of a man or woman married and in adultery who can then divorce, and one get marriage again. Where is the pattern? You should be embracing this position rather than denying it.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, in my comments above, I manifested that people who are “loosed” are free (at liberty) to marry; those who are “bound” by God’s law are not! If you considered the context of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18 when Jesus spoke of “his wife” (in contrast to somebody else’s woman) as well as stating “…What therefore GOD HATH JOINED TOGETHER, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6), you would realize that in context, the break up of Herod’s and Herodias’ adulterous marriage was not being addressed! All marriages and divorces (right or wrong) are recognized and real!

However, the Lord’s prohibitions (both of divorce and marriage to another) were not simply addressed to all who were involved in a marriage of any kind (adulterous or holy). The teaching was specific to those mates who had been divinely joined (bound).

Many of those who defend the doctrine of post-divorce “putting away” have falsely contended that those who teach as I do are ignoring the context of the Pharisees’ question that prompted Jesus’ teaching. Yet in reality, this is exactly what you are doing! The question was, “is it lawful for a man to put away his (divinely obligated, jhb) wife (not somebody else’s, jhb) for every cause?” See I Corinthians 7:2 – “his own wife” / “her own husband.”

Jesus specifically instructed, “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery,” in scenarios where putting away was condemned!

Steven, Herodias was Herod’s brother “Philip’s wife,” not “his wife” (woman). That’s what makes the difference. Romans 7:2-3 as well as I Corinthians 7:39 reveal that marriage to another while one’s “own” BOUND man/woman liveth is what makes the subsequent marriage adultery. The one and only exception to that rule is when one puts away their man/woman for fornication and marries another while the first God-joined man/woman still lives. For some reason you consistently fail to “handle aright” these basic details regarding MDR!

Wallace’s Rebuttal) If it is true for one who had never had his proper marriage to go ahead and marry again to someone who has the right to, then why is it not true for the innocent one to have his/her proper “putting away” when of all people she is the only one that God has given the right to put away and remarry!?!

Belknap’s Comment) It is not true because Matthew 5:32; 19:9; and Luke 16:18 and their attendant prohibitions apply only to those who are married and God-joined. You may not think that it is fair, but that doesn’t change the reality of scripture.

Just as every man/woman has authority to have their “own” man/woman (I Cor. 7:2; Heb. 13:4), every man/woman whose bound mate has committed fornication also has the authority to put away, which necessarily infers an intact marriage.

I have repeatedly cited scriptural proof that those who are married are authorized to put away their God-joined mate for the cause of fornication. Yet you have failed to produce any scripture whatsoever which authorizes those who are unmarried to “put away” their God-joined mate.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) “Aner” and “gune” do not necessarily mean husband and wife but always mean “male” and “female” respectively. Agreed. In certain contexts they require “more” than “male” and “female.”

“Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:1, 2)

Teaching that “aner” only means man and “gune” only means woman would justify people living together. One could easily argue “I have my own woman” and be content to live in fornication.

Belknap’s Comment) I’m sorry Steven but that won’t work either. Although this is the same Greek word that is used to identify any man or woman in a general sense, in the context we are discussing it always denotes HER man and HIS woman – necessarily implying a divine yoke. This only takes place when God joins them in the one-flesh marriage relationship, which is the only bed that is undefiled (Mt. 19:6; Heb. 13:4).

Even though scripture reveals couples in adulterous relationships as being “married,” it never acknowledges them as HIS gune (woman) or HER aner (husband), simply because at least one of them is the gune or aner of another. Although Herodias was “married” to Herod, she was the divinely “bound” (obligated) “gune” of Philip!

It is imperative to distinguish the difference between the physical relationship [married or divorced (i.e. unmarried) cf. I Cor. 7:10-11] and the spiritual obligation [bound or loosed (Rom. 7:2-3; I Cor. 7:11, 39)]. When one fails to properly separate what man does (marry and divorce) from what God does (obligates and frees), it becomes unavoidable to confuse just about everything else on this subject, which is unfortunately what you have done!

Note The Difference between WHAT GOD does with WHAT MAN does:

Jesus said in Matthew 19:5-6, “…for this cause shall A MAN LEAVE father and mother, and shall CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE: and they twain shall be ONE FLESH? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore GOD hath JOINED TOGETHER, let not MAN PUT ASUNDER.”

It is MAN’S part to “LEAVE” and “CLEAVE” (i.e. marry) as well as PUT ASUNDER the “one flesh” marriage relationship (Mt. 19:3, 6, 9; cf. I Cor. 7:10-11)! However, it is GOD who “JOINED” the lawful combination “TOGETHER” and it is GOD who FREES men/women from their divine obligation when the proper conditions are met (Mt. 5:32a; 19:9a; cf. Rom. 7:2-3; I Cor. 7:39).  

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Now that Jeff admits that “aner” and “gune” require, in the generic, “man” and “woman,” and do not always require “husband” and “wife” will he also then concede that “apoluo” doesn’t require lawyers, courtrooms, judges, papers, certificates, etc., but simply “dismissing”? If he would acknowledge such, he would shut his website down immediately and apologized to all he has mislead and falsely accused. If he doesn’t produce a passage and continues his website, he does so as a factious man. Where in the scriptures does it require such? It always means to depart/dismiss, but where does it require lawyers, judges, papers, courtrooms to fulfill Jesus’ teaching? If that makes me a “mental divorcer” I would rather stand with Joseph’s just example rather than with Belknap (Matt. 1:19). Belknap doesn’t believe a woman could be divorced secretly, evidently!

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, when something is “generic” that means that it is “inclusive,” not “exclusive.” I’m afraid that you misunderstand what these words mean:

Generic means, “of, applicable to, or referring to all the members of a genus, class, group, or kind; general.”

Inclusive means, “including a great deal, or including everything concerned; comprehensive: an inclusive art form; an inclusive fee.”

Exclusive means, “not admitting of something else; incompatible: omitting from consideration.”

When I point out that the words “apoluo,” “chorizo” and “aphiemi” (all used in the context of divorce) are generic, it is to be understood that these words would necessarily “include” any and all socially accepted and recognized procedures mandated by civil protocol.

Prior to Deuteronomy 24, there was no civil protocol for divorce. However, after the commands mandated in that passage for God’s people, we can find no Biblical references to Jewish divorce (lawful or not) that did not follow God’s revealed (civil) protocol. Hence, when the words “put away” (in the context of marriage) were used, all understood it to include civil protocol (Ezra 10:3).

If the civil protocol instituted and required by God himself made it possible for one to be divorced against God’s will (Mal. 2:14-16), then why can you not accept that the civil protocol instituted and required by God’s appointed ministers of justice today make it possible for one to be divorced against God’s will?

Moreover, arguing that the espoused Joseph and Mary in Matthew 1:19 (who lived under the law of Moses) authorizes “secret” divorcement today, is just as absurd as arguing for instrumental music in worship or polygamy! If one practice while under the law of Moses may be used to establish authority for us today, why not another? Moreover, if Matthew 1:19 authorizes a “secret” post-divorce “putting away” today, does John 19:38 also authorize becoming a “secret” disciple today (cf. John 9:22; 12:42-43; cp. w. II Timothy 1:7; Revelation 21:8)?

As brother Don Martin pointed out during our discussion circle:

“Alfred Edersheim, considered by many as the foremost authority on first century Jewish customs and practices, maintains that the private putting away of Matthew 1:19 was a regular divorce. He wrote: ‘...Resolve to ‘put her away,’ which could only be done by regular divorce; this one determination only standing out clearly, that, if it must be, her letter of divorce shall be handed to her privately, only in the presence of two witnesses...It was a relief that he could legally divorce her either publicly or privately’ The difference, then, in the ‘public’ and ‘private’ divorce was Joseph’s decision not to charge Mary, but to put her away without charge.”

Wallace’s Rebuttal) My outline of 1 Corinthians 7:11 still stands, “But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.”

1.            she departed (from the husband’s house)

2.            she was in the status of being “unmarried,” thus divorced

3.            she still had a “MAN” who was her “HUSBAND.” Thus she was divorced, but bound.

Belknap’s Comment) First of all, the text does not say that “she departed (from the husband’s house),” the text says, “Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” She departed from HER MAN! There is a difference between her man and her man’s house. 

Just because the passage says she departed from her husband does not mean that departure from his house is all that was required to become “unmarried.” As outlined before, if one under the Old Law had been departed from and became unmarried, those of that day would (rightly) assume that a writing of divorcement had been given her. Similarly, those to whom Paul was speaking in Corinth would understand that if the woman in this passage became “unmarried” (divorced), that she had followed the necessary requirements of the day to accomplish it.

Regarding number three, although you acknowledge that the couple was divorced but bound, I’m afraid that (possibly unintentionally) you have left the impression that they were in some way still married. This is because in the portion of I Corinthians 7:11 that speaks to the woman, the word for man (aner) is used once (not twice, as your point number three does). Saying that she had a “man” (aner) who was her “husband” (aner) is more than what the passage says, and could leave the impression that the word “unmarried” might be used here only in an accommodative sense (which is what your associates erroneously teach). We must not confuse the marriage with the divine obligation. He was still her obligated man, although they were altogether unmarried.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Belknap writes: < Steve, for all the words you used, you never answered my question. I asked: “Within this context, was He addressing those who sunder the “one flesh” (marriage) relationship or was He also including an action that was accomplished after the marriage was already sundered?” It could easily have been answered in one sentence, yet in three long paragraphs, you never once addressed it. Moreover, after sidestepping my question, you unbelievably asked another question of me. Questions are not answers! (I hope that all who are reading this exchange will “hear” exactly what brother Wallace’s silence to my actual questions are saying, loud and clear.)>

May all the readers know that there were contentious men in the first-century who didn’t like Jesus’ “question-answers.”

“Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, "By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?" But Jesus answered and said to them, "I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things” (Matt. 21:23, 24)

Why is asking a question to “answer” a question so unbelievable? I did answer your complicated question and you still have not given ONE passage that shows lawyers, courtrooms, papers and judges make up a scriptural divorce.

Belknap’s Comment) The proposition Jesus made to the Pharisees (who were soliciting information that they might use against Him), was to “answer” their question if they answered His (Mt. 25:23-27). However, you and I were in engaged in a mutual exchange. I had already been answering your questions. Thus, you had already committed to answering my questions, just as I had agreed to answering yours, and I have done so. Moreover, my question was not “complicated.”

I simply asked (question # 4): “Within this context, was He addressing those who sunder the “one flesh” (marriage) relationship or was He also including an action that was accomplished after the marriage was already sundered?” This question addresses the very heart of our disagreement, and it could easily have been answered in one sentence, yet in three long paragraphs you never once addressed it. Recently I read the statement, “a fault once denied, is twice committed.”

What you have advocated within this exchange indeed confirms that you extend the exception clause to those who are already divorced (i.e. unmarried). Yet, because the only forthright answers you could possibly give were 1) to admit there is no scripture to authorize what you advocate, or 2) to produce the scripture which authorizes it (when you know there is none), it is no wonder that you perceived my question as “complicated” and could not and/or would not answer it.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Jeff’s ranting about trying to make the “certificate of divorce” a “God-ordained national procedure” doesn’t help him either. He can only find at best that Moses permitted them to divorce their wives (according to Jesus) and in doing so spoke of giving a certificate (permitted a certificate, Mk. 10:4). He cannot find a commandment to divorce any more than he can find a commandment to give a certificate. However, I would agree that it was taught that they should give their divorced wives a certificate. But even if Moses did command such, the certificate was not the divorce, but only stated or certified what had already happened. Jeff, the certificate was not the divorce! Surely you don’t believe that, do you?

“Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also” (Jer. 3:8)

Observe carefully:

1.            God “put her away”

2.            God then gave her a certificate.

Please give book, chapter and verse that shows the “certificate” is the divorce.” The certificate is no more the divorce in this passage than it is in Matthew 5:32. It is no more the divorce than repentance is baptism in Acts 2:38. Further, please show where giving a certificate requires, lawyers, judges, courtrooms, etc. Please also show where Christians are required to give a certificate under the New Covenant.

Belknap’s Comment) I have never tried to “make the ‘certificate of divorce’” “the divorce,” much less ranted about it. However, a brother who teaches the same post-divorce “putting away” doctrine that you do has taught the very thing you accuse me of, and I exposed it as error:

“And yet, some would suggest by the idea of making the civil proceeding that which is equated to Biblical putting away – here goes a person out here and takes the civil action – person doesn’t know that – I particularly know of a case of this happening in Houston. Man went away to Las Vegas. His wife thought he was leaving on a Monday to go on a business trip to New York; he actually went to Las Vegas with a girl he had been having relations with. He went out there on Monday, filed for divorce, and in Nevada you have a three day waiting period, you can mail the procedure to the spouse. When it was mailed, it didn’t get to her before they got back on Friday. When they get back on Friday, he says, ‘by the way hun, I didn’t go to New York, I went to Las Vegas. I’ve divorced you, I’ve married her.’ The first his wife knew about it was at that time. She told him, ‘I don’t want to have anything to do with you if you’re ungodly and going to stay in that relationship. I’m going to put you away. That farce that you had of an action out there in Las Vegas is not what was putting away.’  If civil procedure is the putting away, that woman was divorced, didn’t know about it, and there is no way she can be protected by the law of God. I suggest to you the principles of God would show the very opposite. The principles would show she does have a right to say ‘here’s why I’m going away from you.  I’m expressing that as the reason why.  I’m taking action.  You get your stuff out of here.’ That’s Biblical putting away – and it’s Biblical putting away for the cause, and it’s Biblical putting away after the very principles that Jesus made clear.” Harry Osborne, “What is Biblical Putting Away?,” at a meeting in Lakeland, FL (May 29, 2001)

Not only is such a scenario – as Harry cited it – a fabrication (as has been confirmed by the laws of Nevada and every other state in the US), it is also ridiculous to say that “you can mail the procedure to the spouse.” For further information / verification see http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/TheNevadaStrawman.htm

The certificate is simply a required part of the divorce (the record/ratification of its completion) under our laws in this country today, something that certifies! Once God commanded the writing of divorcement under the Old Law, no divorce was complete or ratified without it for those living in that dispensation. It was a part of the Old Testament civil procedure requirements (Deut. 24), just as certification is a part that is required in some societies today.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) One could be like you in Jesus’ day and challenge Jesus’ teaching on the authority for a woman to divorce her husband. One might say, where is the pattern of a woman divorcing her husband? Where did Moses speak of it? Yet, Jesus clearly recognized such (Mk. 10:12).

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, I have never challenged Jesus’ teaching on any subject. The point is, not only is there no pattern or authority for post-divorce “putting away” and marriage to another, but it actually contradicts what Jesus taught about a person becoming guilty of adultery when they marry one who has been put away from their God-joined, living mate!

If one was truly “like” me, he would recognize Jesus’ authority in Mark 10:12, as well as His authority in the “b” portions of Matthew 19:9 and Luke 16:18. If one rejected the Lord’s authority by demanding Old law pattern in Jesus day, he would be condemned. However exposing a doctrine which makes Christ’s words in the aforementioned verses “of none effect” would be praised (Ephesians 5:11).

Paul also quoted the Lord’s statement from Matthew 19:6 and applied it to a woman in I Corinthians 7:10. He said this because Jesus made the statement in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9 “…let not MAN (generic – i.e. human being, jhb) put asunder.” This is why Jesus went on in Mark 10:11-12 to show that it was also possible for a woman to wrongfully put away her man.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) You mentioned that it was the God-ordained procedure and yet you cannot show the “God-ordained” procedure for New Testament Christians. Further, if you lived under Moses’ time with your present level of argumentation, it seems to me that you would be seeking to bind a protocol of how the certificate is to be written, sealed and delivered, where the Christians should interject, etc. That is the absurdity of the issue.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, I have proven that the God-ordained (divorce) procedure for all people (Christians or not) is the socially-recognized divorce procedure of his/her culture. That’s why I previously stated that if our socially-recognized procedure for marriage was broom-jumping, and backward broom-jumping for divorce then that’s exactly what we should do!

Once again, we are commanded to respect and obey the civil authorities, for God has placed them in power to rule over us (Romans 13:1-7; I Peter 2:13-17; Titus 3:1)! To disobey their designed procedures is to disobey God. According to scripture, the divorce procedure which God acknowledges (yet does not necessarily approve of) is the one that is regulated by the societal powers that He has appointed.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Jeff illustrated:

<All this discussion revolving around “civil” protocol reminds me of the hand gun controversy. In an attempt to outlaw gun ownership by civilians, liberals try to con us into thinking that hand guns are killers when in reality, guns are only “tools” that people use to commit murder>.

Please show me from the scriptures how “lawyers, courtrooms, papers, fees, etc.” are tools/expediencies in carrying out a “sending away.” Guns in the hands of killers are deadly. Lawyers in the hands of fornicators are just as deadly according to you.

Belknap’s Comment) It is true that wrongful divorcement is indeed a hurtful thing (see Matthew 5:32a), however, I never said it was “deadly.” I marvel that you previously agreed that sinful men/women may wrongfully put away their marriage partner, but now you seem to deny this ability when it comes to a man/woman who is a fornicator. Question: Does your definition of fornicator include Ron’s “prospective fornicator” who “gets divorce paper & then commits adultery”?

Your distinction is NOT articulated anywhere in scripture! It may be sinful for a fornicator to put away his spouse, but it is NOT impossible! You seem to think that since it’s not right, it cannot be real! However, NO unapproved divorce is right! Those victimized by such unlawful divorces are in the same unfortunate boat: unmarried yet divinely bound. Many times when sin occurs, innocent people regrettably suffer!

The only authority given by the Lord for one to remarry another while their obligated mate lives, is if – and only if – they put their God-joined mate away (i.e. sunder the one-flesh marriage relationship, cf. Mt. 19:6, 9) for the cause of fornication. I would love to be able to extend the exception clause to the innocent put away party, but I have no authority to do so (Gal. 1:10; I Pet. 4:11; II Jn. 9).

The Bible reveals how human agency is employed in a number of things that people do. The following are but a few of the many examples of such in scripture:

In Matthew 8:5 the scripture says “there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him.” Moreover, in verse 8 we read, “The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof.” However, in Luke’s account of all of this, we learn that this centurion did these things via human agency. Luke 7:3 says, “he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.” Then in verse 6 of this context the Bible says, “And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof.” The same thing can be illustrated by James and John. In Mark 10:35-37 it says that they came to Jesus about sitting on His each side in the Kingdom. However, in Matthew 20:20-22, we learn that they asked this question via (through) their mother. Steven, when an individual does something, it does not exclude human agency!

The Jews were charged with crucifying the Lord (Acts 2:23, 36; 3:14-17; 7:52; I Thess. 2:14-15; et al). Yet, they accomplished this unlawful injustice against Christ by the means of human agency (i.e. the ruling officials). They delivered Jesus to stand before Pilate the governor (Mt. 27:1; see Jn. 19:10-11). Did this terrible injustice really occur? Did Pilate really have “the power” (ability) to bring about the Lord’s physical demise? I Peter 2-3 and John 19 teach us that God gave various authorities the power (though not approval) to make decisions that effect the affairs of its subjects in both just and unjust ways.

In the gospel of Matthew 5:25 Jesus said, “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison” (cf. Luke 12:58).

Jesus taught that it is “the adversary” who delivers one to “the judge,” and that one needs to seek reconciliation lest the one they have offended pursue them to the fullest extent of the law. James wrote, “Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?” (Jas. 2:6). In one breath James says, “rich men oppress you,” but in the next he says they do it “before the judgment seats.” In I Corinthians 6:7, Paul wrote, “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?…But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.” WHAT the brethren were doing was one thing, HOW they were doing it was totally another.

When an individual takes another to court, it is understood that “the judge” or the judicial system itself is not responsible for the suit; it is the plaintiff. The court is not responsible for the suit, it is the individual (whether he seeks divorce or restitution or financial gain or retribution or justice) through human agency. That is why Paul wrote that brother taking brother to law brought reproach against the body of Christ at Corinth: the members were the ones responsible for bringing unnecessary public suits against their very own brethren.

Isaiah prophesied and stated that the Lord “will teach us of his ways” (Isa. 2:3; cf. Jn. 6:44-45). Yet, we all understand that He teaches us by human agency (Rom. 10:13-17; I Cor. 1:18-21). These few examples (illustrations) are only the tip of the iceberg.

See http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/TheRoleOfCivilGovernmentInMarriageAndDivorce.htm

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Jeff argued:

< Furthermore, I would have to disagree with your emphasis that “Jesus revealed the exception clause in the context of punishing the widespread liberal school of thought justifying trivial divorce or divorce for ‘any cause’ (Mat. 19:3).” This may have been part of the Lord’s intent, but from verse 4 to “the exception clause” revealed in verse 9, Jesus bypassed the teaching of the rabbis to what God said (was written) “at the beginning.” We do not know exactly what the Pharisees had in mind when they were “tempting him” (verse 3, cf. I Corinthians 2:11).>

You may disagree all you want, but such doesn’t prove anything. We do know what the Pharisees had in mind and that was to test Jesus’ teaching on limited divorce which conflicted with theirs of “any cause” (Mat. 19:3).

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, notice what I stated, “Jesus bypassed the teaching of the rabbis to what God said (was written) ‘at the beginning.’” If what Jesus said doesn’t “prove anything” to you (regarding what He was teaching), nothing else will. To surmise that Jesus was doing nothing more than “punishing the widespread liberal school of thought justifying trivial divorce” is unfounded. You seem to be implying that the rabbis had the power to limit Jesus’ teaching to what they were specifically asking about. Jesus was teaching His law – not just for the benefit of the hard-hearted rabbis – but to establish His decree regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage until the end of time by re-establishing God’s original design for the institution of marriage since the beginning. This is why I also put I Corinthians 2:11 down for your consideration:

“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Since you cited human authority, so I will submit a quote from the scholar, Albert Barnes:

“There was considerable difference of opinion among the Jews for what causes the husband was permitted to do this. One of their famous schools maintained that it might be done for any cause, however trivial. The other, that adultery only could justify it. The truth was, however, that the husband exercised this right at pleasure; that he was judge in the case, and dismissed his wife when, and for what cause, he chose” (Barnes Notes, on Matthew 5:31).

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, I never “cited human authority” for what I taught. As my original answer revealed, I was aware of the teaching of the pre-Christ rabbis. Although Barnes comments on the different schools of thought in the days of Christ, he never made the unfounded assertion that you did when you said, “Jesus revealed the exception clause in the context of punishing the widespread liberal school of thought justifying trivial divorce or divorce for “any cause” (Mat. 19:3).”

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Regarding his question 5, he said that I did not answer it. Whenever he doesn’t like the answer, he says I did not answer it. I linked an article I wrote on divorce and covenant-breaking of which he obviously did not scan for he would find that filled with scriptures and such.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, linking to an article that was written before my specific question was asked is not answering my specific question. The question was: “Would you please provide a book, chapter and verse which reveals a biblical pattern for someone to ‘put away’ their divinely-obligated man/woman after their one flesh (marriage) relationship had already been sundered?” I read your entire article as well as every scripture you cited, yet still have not found the book, chapter, and verse which reveals the pattern that I asked about. Hence, you have still not answered the question – nor can you, for such does not exist.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Belknap asked, << Regardless of what the “methods/protocols” for marriage and divorce were and are, once one has been wrongfully put away (as you acknowledge they can be), where is the “book, chapter and verse which reveals a biblical pattern for someone to ‘put away’ their divinely-obligated man/woman after their one flesh (marriage) relationship had already been sundered?”>

Rather, a better question is, “Where is the biblical teaching that forbids the innocent one of putting her fornicating spouse away by his chosen methods or by state law?” Where is that passage Jeff? You produce one passage that shows the innocent’s right terminated of putting away the fornicator by the fornicator’s speed and methods, then I will recant all. You cannot find it though. You only find passages that speak on putting away, in the context of one sending them out of their house, and then you impregnate an American-Law-understanding into the text to sustain your point. Where is the passage that teaches a fornicator is permitted by God, or able to put away his innocent mate? You cannot find that either except in the halls of your imagination? Where is the scripture that shows a fornicator’s speed to put away somehow changes God’s law to the innocent one? Again, nothing! None of their marriages ended in the courtrooms. They ended when the husband sent his wife to the highway or when the woman having had enough, simply left. That is why your scenario with your particulars is not discussed directly in the scriptures.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, a fornicator could be as slow as cold molasses in putting away their innocent mate for an unjust cause. However, if the innocent party chooses not to employ what Jesus authorized them to do in order to lawfully marry another while their bound mate lives, then they have made their choice and must live with the consequences. Ignorance is no excuse.

Regarding your “better question” above: “Where is the biblical teaching that forbids the innocent one of putting her fornicating spouse away by his chosen methods or by state law?”, I’d kindly remind you that one does not need a passage that “forbids” something in order to prove that it’s unauthorized. Have you forgotten that silence of the scriptures does not equal permission? The Christian church and the institutional brethren divided from us many years ago over their practices that invaded the silence of God! Moreover, they made the exact same kind of argument that you’re making – they asked: “Where is the biblical teaching that forbids the use of instrumental music in worship?” and/or “Where is the biblical teaching that forbids a church to send money to a college?”

The problem is that the one you call “the innocent one” is the one whom Jesus called “her that is put away,” Luke 16:18.

Divorced (put away/asunder) people cannot put away/asunder (i.e. what’s already away or separated)!

Furthermore, I am not “impregnating” an “American-Law-understanding” into the text; I am simply harmonizing the truth taught in Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1 and I Peter 2:13-17 with the truth taught in Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9 and Luke 16:18. You on the other hand, are “aborting” biblical teaching by denying the God-given authority of civil law to regulate and ratify marriage and divorce (II Pet. 2:10; Jude 8) and denying the truths taught in Matthew 5:32b, Matthew 19:9b, and Luke 16:18b. Just as it was possible for God’s people to carry out a sinful divorce that victimized an innocent mate via the civil theocracy the Lord ordained in the Mosaic age (Deut. 24:1; Mal. 2:14-16), it is also possible to do the same today, via the civil authorities He ordained for “the last days.”

Steven, what I advocate is the exact same teaching that Truth Magazine use to teach before it began to circle its wagons to defend the public error of brother Ron Halbrook. Please acknowledge the following.

When Mike Willis asked Harry Osborne to prepare a special twelve-article edition on MDR for Truth Magazine (Vol. 34; January 4, 1990), one of the articles entitled “Definition of Terms” was written by Elmer Moore and stated:

“A divorce takes place when this marriage covenant has been dissolved. In our present society a divorce occurs when a legal decree has been issued…Like the marriage covenant, this may be with or without God’s approval.”

In brother Osborne’s writing “A Closing Word” for this edition, he stated:

“I believe the truth has been taught and hope it will be carefully and prayerfully considered. My thanks go to each writer for his time and effort expended in this task.”

Therefore I ask you Steven, whose belief and teaching has really changed?

Wallace’s Rebuttal) I agree with Jeff’s statement here about his own absence of answering these questions: “This conspicuous absence again only serves to reinforce my contention that there is no scriptural authority” for the guilty fornicator to terminate the innocent’s right to remarry”

Belknap’s Comment) Regarding your rebuttal above, I would reply that all sinners act without scriptural authority! Was there any more authority for the Jews to crucify Christ, or for Saul of Tarsus to persecute first century saints than there is for a fornicator to “put away” his innocent mate? But if you hold to your reasoning consistently, you would have to deny that such tragic sins really took place. I know that you would agree that those sins were really REAL sins!

The quarrel for you then, seems to come – not with the sin of divorce (which is man’s part), but with the God-imposed consequences of that sin. And your contention that, “Finally, I am leery of a doctrine that subjects the innocent vow-abiding mate losing her right to pursue another marriage simply by the speed and level of activity of a godless fornicator by the standard of human devised protocol” explains why that is so. What it boils down to, is that you are “leery” of Jesus’ decree that “whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” You have thus decided that He could not really have meant what he plainly said in this quote (and the other two parallels) about those whose God-joined marriage was wrongfully sundered, because it does not seem fair or right to you.

Unfortunately, the MOST INNOCENT are many times made to suffer because of the sins of others! Jesus taught in no uncertain terms that mankind could and would wrongfully marry and divorce, and then He imposed consequences upon both guilty and innocent partners who are involved in those sins! When something that is whole (“one”) is violently torn apart, it is not without serious consequence or cost to both parts.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Sorry Jeff, but this doesn’t answer either:

< II Timothy 1:13, “Hold fast the form (‘THE PATTERN,’ NKJV, ASV, RSV) of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.”

Where there is no pattern, Steven, there is NO authority. God has commanded us to obey His ministers regarding social protocol. For Paul wrote, “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Romans 13:2).>

You need to also balance it out by,

“because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15).

Such is not resisting the ordinance of God nor the powers that are by refusing to define “apoluo” by the way the government defines it for their own system. But such is resisting the ordinance of God by allowing the powers that be to define his words and his definitions. For example, the powers that be in some parts are defining marriage as between and man and a man. Christians cannot allow such a definition when we speak about and enter marriage. Likewise, we don’t use the federal government to define any other Bible word.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, to say that civil law has no authority to regulate divorce when it only ratifies the same type of sinful divorces that the governing law of Deut. 24 did (cf. Mal. 2:14-16), is most assuredly resisting the power ordained by God today!

You seem to imply that a wrongful divorce is not really a divorce, and that an adulterous marriage is not really a marriage. This is absolute nonsense, considering that Jesus and other inspired men articulated that man can both enter into – and exit marriages contrary to God’s will. The Bible says that Herod “married” Herodias – that was a sinful, adulterous marriage that Mark (via inspiration) called being “married.” Paul also stated in Romans 7:2-3 that one could “be married” to one person, while “bound” to another. These are the same type of adulterous relationships that Jesus articulated regarding the (b) clauses of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18.

The theory being currently advocated – that Jesus and all the other inspired writers are only speaking accommodatively regarding wrongful divorces and marriages –  is completely devoid of merit.

Cf. Mt. 19:9, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery…”

Jesus used the words “put away” and “marry” only once in Matthew 19:9a, applying these same terms to both approved and unapproved divorces and marriages. The same word (used only once) in the same context cannot convey opposite meanings. Either all approved and unapproved divorces and marriages are real or they are accommodative!

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Regarding question 6, I don’t teach that or believe that the civil putting away with all of its procedures is a biblical putting away, thus two. I don’t teach that those things fulfill the task of putting away. Render unto Ceasar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. Where does the civil dissolution of the marriage have anything to do with God? There is only one biblical putting away that is recognized/permitted in the eyes of God and that is when an innocent mate sends away or leaves their spouse for fornication (Mat. 19:9). Without civil protocol, a fornicator who sends his wife out is in sin for fornication and can never remarry. The wife who was sent out (and that was pretty much all of the time in the Roman-Greco world), if innocent of the fornication in this scenario, can remarry in such circumstances. So, produce the passage that proves civil protocol as an inherent part of divorce or shut down your website like you said you would.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, your “rebuttal” regarding question 6 betrays your earlier answer (to my question #1: Do you believe that it is possible for one spouse to wrongfully put away their mate (against the innocent mate's will) and it be considered a divorce in the “eyes of God,” – or are they still Biblically “married”?) to which you stated, “Yes, I believe it is possible for a spouse to wrongfully put away their mate. It happens all the time. Where fornication is not a part of the original equation, then remarriage can never be done for either party at least as long as both shall live.”

Now you directly contradict your own answer and state: ”There is only one biblical putting away that is recognized/permitted in the eyes of God and that is when an innocent mate sends away or leaves their spouse for fornication (Mat. 19:9).”

And you accused me of a “flip-flop?” Again, you obviously deny a host of verses’ teaching that man can wrongfully enter into and exit marriages, as outlined above. Hence, you deny what Jesus and Paul said!

Additionally, I never agreed to “shut down” my “website” under the conditions you cited above! The Bible clearly teaches that people become involved in adultery when they marry people who are wrongfully put away from their God-joined mates (Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b, Luke 16:18b). Hence, what I said was that I would shut the website down if / when you (or anyone else) cited the scripture that contradicts that teaching by authorizing unmarried (put away) people to “put away” their God-joined mates for fornication and marry another.  Incidentally, I am still waiting.

Regarding My Questions To Belknap

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Quest. 1: Jeff wrote: < Therefore, if a society recognizes broom-jumping as the accepted protocol by which one becomes married, and backward broom-jumping as the procedure by which one becomes divorced, then when one employs those culturally-recognized and accepted “procedures” with the intent to marry or divorce, they are married or divorced (right or wrong)!>

After playing hopscotch, Jeff never did clearly tell us whether marriage and divorce always “mandates” civil compliance and procedure. From Jeff’s answer, he would defend that the fornicator who is fastest at jumping over a broom backwards forever takes away the right of the innocent, vow-abiding spouse from ever remarrying? Is that not ridiculous? I am glad Jeff placed this quote in his rebuttal because it will certainly help people see the absurd position that he and his mentaldivorce.com site is in. Imagine, brethren, setting aside the word of God for backwards broom jumping! Amazing! In seeking to maintain good public relations with civil law, Jeff makes himself an outlaw against God!

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, It is obvious that you’re not just belittling the practice of backward broom-jumping, but any and every procedure regulated by a God-ordained human authority that would ratify a wrongful putting away. This in effect, is belittling God’s word that affirms such is possible, while not authorized. The same practice is employed by those who belittle water baptism. They are adamant that a little pool of water cannot make the difference where one spends eternity!

Jesus stated in Luke 16:18: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

This is indisputably describing a man’s wrongful divorce in which his woman becomes the one who “is put away from her husband.” In spite of that, Jesus still says that “whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

During the life of Christ, the process of divorce (writing a bill of divorcement and sending her out of the house with it in hand) could be accomplished in a matter of minutes, rather than months. Not only was man able to do what God hated (Malachi 2:14-16), they could do it with great speed! Yet sadly, you deny what Jesus clearly affirms.

Again, your quarrel is with Jesus’ teaching that “whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery,” not with the man’s wrongful putting away. Prior to Jesus’ teaching, a woman who was put away from her husband for a cause other than fornication could use her writing of divorcement to verify her right to marry another.

Yet, Jesus set forth His new law regarding this topic, and it was more restrictive than the old one (as evidenced by Peter’s comment in Matthew 19:10). Not only did it preclude man to put away for a cause short of fornication (and to marry another as per the old law), it also denied the former prerogative of the one who was put away to marry another. Yet you reject this new law of our Lord regarding those who are put away because you are “leery of a doctrine that subjects the innocent vow-abiding mate losing her right to pursue another marriage simply by the speed and level of activity of a godless fornicator by the standard of human devised protocol.”

I beg you and all those reading this exchange, to make sure that we emphasize Bible authority (Col. 3:17; I Pet. 4:11) for all we teach and not human reasoning. Again, to resist the powers that be, is to resist God Himself (Rom. 13:1-7; cf. II Pet. 2:10; Jude 8)!

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Quest. 2: “Wallace’s Question # 2) Does the teaching of Jesus on “putting” away apply to civilizations where “divorce” is not recognized by the government? Wally Little says “no.” I say “yes.” What do you say?”

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 2) When brethren start asking “what if” questions using the most extreme and emotionally-charged scenarios, it does nothing to clarify scriptural teaching, but obscures it! If they wanted scriptural clarification, they would go to scripture and not scenarios that invariably involve someone who is suffering due to another’s actions.

This is not using emotionally charged argumentation. It is a fact! Jeff just doesn’t want to deal with it. Perhaps he should move to the Philippines and then he would have to.

<We are commanded to respect and obey the civil authorities, for God has placed them in power to rule over us (Romans 13:1-5; I Peter 2:13-17; Titus 3:1), and to disobey them is to disobey God. According to scripture, the accepted practice of each civilization should be the standard regarding social protocol, whatever it may be. (There is never an instance of marriage or divorce recorded in the Bible which was not a matter of public record and acknowledgement among the people of that civilization.)>

But being a matter of public record didn’t always involve ANY governmental legislation! Further, Jeff, we are not talking about respecting those in civil authority. We are talking about respecting what they legislate and whether their definitions of things can be substituted for what is written? If the government called “baptism” sprinkling shall we concur? Further, would you submit that one sprinkled-baptized had a legitimate baptism and should be accepted without being immersed? No, you would not accept the sprinkling because it is against God’s word even though it is referred to a “baptism” and a “socially recognized” practice. But you will accept a divorce when it is also against God’s word and not allow an innocent one to remarry? Sounds contradictory to me.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, you have totally misrepresented the teaching in Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 2:13-17 and Titus 3:1. We are not commanded to respect the person of those who hold civil offices, but to respect their authority and to obey them. If they require something which would cause us to disobey God, then we must NOT submit. However, in all other instances, the way that we obey God IS to submit to them.

The civil government has not re-defined the word divorce (it is still the process of sundering a marriage)! Jesus himself described a divorce (right or wrong) as an action that puts away / asunder the God-joined marriage (Mt. 19:3, 6; Mk. 10:9; I Cor. 7:10-11.) It is because Jesus said that an unlawful divorce is putting away that I believe it, not because civil government calls it so.

You are claiming that the technical definition of “put away” means “repudiate” or “send out of the house,” and that definition is not the same as the government’s definition of it, so the government’s definition does not count. However, if the technical definition that you limit the teaching to is true, then the “innocent” person becomes “put away” (sent out of the house or repudiated) even before a divorce could be ratified in most places. This argument certainly fails to help your case where the innocent put away person is concerned!

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Quest. 3: Did Isaac need a legal certificate to marry Rebekah (in the eyes of God). 3a) If “YES” please cite the scripture 3b) If “NO” were you the one who added “(However you get married in a culture; requires that civil action to obtain a divorce.)” in Morris’ response? 3c) If “NO” do you also accept that a legal procedure is not inherent to divorce?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 3) Isaac simply followed the socially-recognized procedure of his day. Hence, all in that society recognized him as being wedded at the time of their marriage. However, procedures sometimes change with dispensations. Deuteronomy 24 changed the socially-recognized procedure of divorcement for the Jews after the Mosaic decree was written.

Thanks for admitting that neither marriage nor divorce inherently requires lawyers, courtrooms, judges, papers, certificates, etc. Now, why can you not see that socially recognized procedure doesn’t define the action being done before God? Rebekah wore a veil to get married (Gen. 24:65). That was a socially recognizable deed. Shall we then require that all women wear veils to get married today? I don’t think you would. But you say because the government calls something a divorce and it requires a record of such, that such replaces Jesus simple teaching of sending away? Deuteronomy 24 regulated a practice that was already going on; divorces that were already happening. It was given to stifle trivial divorce, not promote it. The certificate didn’t define when the divorce occurred, viz. when the last stroke of ink was done, the divorce was final. It certified that it did occur and for what reasons.

Belknap’s Comment) Once again, while I have taught that marriage and divorce may include lawyers, judges, etc. where the civil law (which God ordained) demands it, I have NEVER taught that either “marriage nor divorce inherently requires lawyers, courtrooms, judges, papers, certificates, etc.”

That the government “calls” an unlawful sundering a “divorce” is a moot point, because God calls it one. My belief that one becomes an adulterer when they marry another after having been put away by a (still living) mate has nothing to do with what civil government defines as divorce! It has everything to do with what God calls a divorce (cf. I Cor. 7:10-15). Moreover, my belief that one cannot put away after already being wrongfully put away has nothing to do with what civil law does not allow, and everything to do with what God has not authorized nor even implied was possible.

Your reasoning that we do not need a marriage license today because Adam and Eve or because Isaac and Rebekah did not need one is absurd! That would be equivalent to arguing that we do not need a hunting license because Peter did not one need one (Acts 10:13). According to your logic here, we may disregard the civil law which requires a building permit because Noah didn’t need one (Gen. 6). Where does your rejection for civil requirements end?

If 1) you believe that Jesus’ so-called “simple teaching of sending away” was – and is the defining process for divorce, and if 2) you really believe that one can be wrongfully put away (as you affirmed in your answer to my first question); Then: it follows that an innocent mate would be put away at the second their God-joined mate simply sends them away – even before the completion of the civil procedure.

This is similar to what was happening prior to the writing of Deuteronomy 24 and that is why the requirement for the writing of divorcement was instituted. Moreover, in the New Testament we are taught that one reason for God’s ordinance of human authority is for the good of those who are good (Rom. 13:3-4). As such, we can see that the civil authorities provide more time and rights for the innocent victim of divorce than the simple “sending away” procedure that you support – not less.

See http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/GodsProvisionalCareViaCivilGovernment.htm

However, in many of your above responses you inconsistently deny the ability of both the civil ratification AND your own “simple” “sending away” procedure to effect a wrongful divorce against an “innocent” mate. You do this even while affirming the ability to employ a “simple” “sending away” (with no civil ratification) to effect (a post-divorce) “putting away” for fornication.

Hence your objection to civil protocol in the case of wrongful divorce is hollow, since you also deny the ability of the “simple” “sending away” method that you yourself claim Jesus taught is the official one to effect a divorce against one who is “innocent.” Because of this inconsistent reasoning, it is apparent that your argument against civil protocol is nothing more than a smokescreen to obscure your real contention that it is impossible for a mate to be put away wrongfully – by either mate via civil authority (or by any other means).

I can understand why you want to shy away from that discussion, for Jesus clearly taught that such was possible even though not authorized in Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18 and I Corinthians 7:10-11, 12-15. Yet I would encourage you to be forthright and defend what you are advocating, rather than trying to obscure it and bring it in through the back door.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Quest, 3b: < I did not write anything to you prior to the questions I asked you.>

I didn’t ask you if you wrote anything to me. I asked if you “added” the writing in red. Please don’t sidestep the question.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, I did not add the writing above in red.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Quest. 3c: I am glad that you concede that a legal procedure is not inherent to the creation of the divorce. Please don’t cause anymore contention by insisting on scenarios which are not inherently a part of true divorce as seen in the eyes of God.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, it’s funny that I “conceded” this point before there was ever any controversy over it! But even so, that does not mean that God would acknowledge a “divorce” that does not follow the socially-recognized rule that He has ordained! Especially, after one has already been put away, via both your so-called “sending away” and social protocol!

God may not approve of some divorces that are ratified by the authorities He has appointed, however scripture teaches that He does acknowledge them. Contrariwise, you are advocating a divorce “procedure” that He would not even acknowledge – much less approve of, since you are suggesting it could be done outside of the authority that He ordained and after the fact of being sundered. A so-called “putting away” after the fact of divorce is an absurdity.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Quest 4: Wallace’s Question # 4) Do you forbid a woman (vow-abiding) whose fornicating, marital-bed desecrating, husband first sprang divorce papers upon her the right to remarry? If no, how do you reconcile passages like Matthew 19:9?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 4) . . .However, if the “vow-abiding” woman does not exercise the authorized action to put away her man for fornication prior to becoming put away herself, then she is the one whom Jesus described as “put away from her husband,” (Lk. 16:18; cf. Matthew 19:9) and as such, it is Jesus who “forbids” her marriage to another. I am simply reiterating His instruction regarding those who are put away.

False, Jesus is not discussing a woman who is beat by a fornicator in a civil or socially accepted procedure. The gov. doesn’t even allow “adultery” as a reason and therefore to be consistent, you would have to forbid all to divorce because there can never be a divorce for adultery. Further, as I mentioned above, if one never married before, is married in an adulterous union, then when divorced, she/he should never be allowed to marry again for “whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Mat. 5:32) “and as such, it is Jesus who ‘forbids’ her marriage to another. I am simply reiterating His instruction regarding those who are put away.”

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, please read the above, where I have proven that Jesus in Matthew 5:31-32a and 19:6, 9a is not addressing the breakup of an adulterous marriage, but only one that God has joined together. For that reason, the teaching “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” does not apply to the situation you describe.

Furthermore, I have NEVER contended that one must have the cause of “adultery” stipulated in court or on the divorce papers for one to put away for the cause of fornication. Jesus only specified that one must put away his/her mate for the cause of fornication, if they are to have the ability to marry another lawfully! No where did Jesus stipulate that the cause must be in writing.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Quest 5: Wallace’s Question # 5) Is civil protocol an absolute necessary part in establishing the meaning of “apoluo.”

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 5) Obviously the words “apoluo,” “chorizo” and “aphiemi” (all used in the context of divorce) are generic. Regarding divorce, they would include lawful (approved) as well as unlawful (unapproved) actions toward one’s marriage partner. Moreover, they would include whatever procedure is socially-accepted in any culture in which it was employed (for instance, backward broom-jumping). [Remember: there must be honesty in the sight of all men as well as God, II Corinthians 8:21.] Hence, once a spouse employs that socially-recognized procedure (regardless of whether right or wrong), then one has put away his/her mate, and the other becomes the put away person (as described in the 2^nd parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18). After a wrongful divorce, the two remain bound (divinely obligated) to each other – though not married.

Okay then, “lawful” and “unlawful” divorces where one had never been married before and was not married to another who should not be married may not marry again because the one “becomes “the put away person (as described in the 2^nd parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18). After a wrongful (or rightful) divorce, the two remain bound (divinely obligated) to each other—though not married.). If it works in one scenario, then it works in another.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, as I have said several times during this exchange regarding adulterous marriages such as Herod and Herodias: inspiration teaches that their marriage was NOT LAWFUL, hence they MUST divorce. The Lord’s rule in Matthew 5:32a; 19:6, 9a and Luke 16:18a is that man MUST NOT divorce their mate whom God has joined together (with only one exception to that rule). Hence, the teaching in the previously mentioned verses does not apply to a scenario where divorce is mandatory as per the law of God.

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Quest 6: Wallace’s Question # 6) Does Jesus bind a certificate of divorce today? If yes, please cite the scripture?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 6) It seems a recurrent theme among your questions that you are trying to get around the finality of our socially-recognized and accepted procedure of divorce in this culture. However, if our own socially-recognized procedure for marriage was broom-jumping, and backward broom-jumping for divorce, would you acknowledge that the innocent, “vow-abiding” woman whose “marital bed-desecrating” husband divorced her (by jumping over the broom backwards) is now the one “which is put away from her husband” and thus becomes an adulteress when she marries another (as per Luke 16:18)? Or would you be asking me, “Does Jesus bind backward broom-jumping for divorce today? If yes, please cite the scripture?”

It is embarrassing that you ridiculed me for asking a questions when answering and then you do the very same thing! Why did you break your own procedure in answering questions? Why did you practice what you condemn?

Thus, the discussion over “procedure” is not relevant. What is relevant is: A) whether or not you acknowledge that one who is wrongfully divorced is nonetheless divorced in God’s eyes, even while still obligated to the man or woman that God joined him/her to (and you have told me that you do), and consequently, B) whether or not you accept Jesus’ teaching regarding the one who is divorced from their God-joined mate, as per Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b; Luke 16:18b; cf. Romans 7:2-3 (obviously not).

It is indeed relevant, because you are the one impregnating Jesus’ words for “put away” and “depart” as being done by civil procedure! Yes I do accept Jesus’ teaching. It pertains to all who are divorce. Only one type of divorcee can remarry—those who put their spouse away, those who send them away or left them, for fornication. You make it complicated, I don’t.

Once fornication has occurred, there no longer remains any obligation on the innocent one to the guilty. Once fornication occurs, the innocent may send the other away at any time or they may exercise “LONGSUFFERING” and wait for the other to come to his senses (as per the principle of 2Tim. 2: 26; 3:10). Do you count the longsuffering of one such a trial as “slackness” (2 Pet. 3:9)? When Israel committed adultery against God by worshipping the golden calf, God removed his presence from them, he was released from the covenant that was made; he could have destroyed them all, but He did not altogether divorce himself from them (Gen. 33:3). Would you have counseled God, be careful, because if Israel puts you away first, then you cannot ever have another nation?

< If “a certificate of divorce” is a necessary component of the socially-accepted and recognized procedure of our culture (just like driving, fishing/hunting and other licenses are required), then we must fulfill the requirements of God’s word to be in compliance to HIS divinely appointed civil authorities (powers that be).

I could just as easily ask you to “please cite the scripture” for the requirement to have a driving license to drive, or a fishing/hunting license to fish or hunt. What about a license to practice medicine? The SAME scriptures which require compliance with the civil mandates to obtain any of those other civil licenses for participation in those things, require civil licenses for marriage/divorce as well. If you were to be consistent in your reasoning, then you would have to deny the need for ALL such required licenses.>

The certificate of divorce was not a “license” to divorce, Jeff, but a “certificate” of what had happened. Let that sink in, friend. You started your argument off on a false platform comparing apples to who knows what. You need a license to drive, fish, hunt, but the license is not driving, fishing or hunting. Those are before you do such. A certificate is after you have done something. If I apply for a hunting license, I cannot boast that I am a hunter if I never went out on the field to hunt anything. Your faulty understanding makes the piece of paper the action being done! The sending away is not in a written license from man, but is a written license from God (Matt. 19:9)!

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, I actually began and ended my answer to your question # 6 addressing the “marriage” license together with the “divorce” certificate and based my reasoning on that correlation (which you conveniently omitted)! You agreed with me when you wrote, ”You need a license to drive, fish, hunt…”, but yet you argue that we do not need a marriage license today – because Isaac didn’t need one! Where’s the consistency? I stated “It seems a recurrent theme among your questions that you are trying to get around the finality of our socially-recognized and accepted procedure of divorce in this culture. However, if our own socially-recognized procedure for marriage was broom-jumping, and backward broom-jumping for divorce, would you acknowledge that the innocent, “vow-abiding” woman whose “marital bed-desecrating” husband divorced her (by jumping over the broom backwards) is now the one “which is put away from her husband” and thus becomes an adulteress when she marries another (as per Luke 16:18)? Or would you be asking me, ‘Does Jesus bind backward broom-jumping for divorce today? If yes, please cite the scripture?’”

What I’m saying is, what begins legally (via the socially-recognized and accepted practice in any civilization), should end in the same way (via the socially-recognized and accepted practice in any civilization).

Hence, I stated, “If ‘a certificate of divorce’ is a necessary component of the socially-accepted and recognized procedure of our culture (just like driving, fishing/hunting and other licenses are required), then we must fulfill the requirements of God’s word to be in compliance to HIS divinely appointed civil authorities (powers that be).” Steven, in case you didn’t know, a “license” is a “certificate.” Have you ever heard of a “marriage certificate” (i.e. license)?

“li·cense: 1. formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession. 2. a certificate, tag, plate, etc., giving proof of such permission; official permit: a driver’s license…”

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/license

The rulers and their documents “are not a terror to good works, but to the evil” (Rom. 13:3). We can either be an “in-law,” or an “out-law.” Personally, I choose to obey the laws of the land in order to be faithful to God!

Furthermore, you can no more find where Jesus specifically bound a marriage license for becoming “one flesh” (married), than you can find where He specifically bound “a certificate of divorce.” However, specific authority is not the only way to establish authority! There is also generic authority! And the Bible teaches, yea commands us, whenever and wherever licenses/certificates are required by the presiding civil authorities, those certificates are necessary! Such documents are not inherently sinful in and of themselves anymore than the writing of divorcement was inherently evil under the law of Moses! Yet, men under the law also sinfully “put away” via God’s protocol required of them.

Therefore, I had ended this answer (to your question # 6) by saying, “The SAME scriptures which require compliance with the civil mandates to obtain any of those other civil licenses for participation in those things, require civil licenses for marriage/divorce as well. If you were to be consistent in your reasoning, then you would have to deny the need for ALL such required licenses.

We are warned in scripture about those who would ‘resist’ and ‘despise’ the powers/authorities that be (Rom. 13:2; II Pet. 2:10; Jude 8).”

Please remember Paul’s words also in II Corinthians 8:21, “Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.”  Post-divorce “putting away” is neither recognized nor approved of by any scripture (in the sight of the Lord), nor in the sight of men. Yet the Lord commands honesty in the sight of both to please Him. Cf. Romans 12:17b

Wallace’s Rebuttal) I have to wonder if you were in Peter’s vision would you have interrupted the apostle and said, “before you rise and kill, make sure you stop by the local Walmart and apply for a valid hunting license” (Acts 10:13). LAUGH and LIGTHEN UP, then repent and mourn. Do I teach that we should not have driving, fishing, hunting, medical or marriage licenses? No. But again, they do not make the action being done.

Belknap’s Comment) Steven, once God commanded the writing of divorcement in Deuteronomy 24, no divorce under the old law was complete until she had the writing in her hand and was put out of the house (right or wrong), according to their civil protocol. This was right and true regardless of how many Jews may have joined hands to belittle the procedure.

How can you say ”No” to the question “Do I teach that we should not have driving, fishing, hunting, medical or marriage licenses?”, but vehemently contend that we do not need a marriage license to marry? This is nonsensical! Moreover, every certificate is advantageous.

Merriam – Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines “cer·tif·i·cate” as:

“Function: noun
1 a : a document containing a certified statement esp. as to the truth of something <a birth certificate> b : a document certifying that a person has fulfilled the requirements of and may practice in a specified field <a teaching certificate>
2 : CERTIFICATION <the signature…constitutes a certificate that the attorney or party has read the document —U.S. Code>
3 : a document that is proof of ownership or indebtedness <stock certificates> <gold certificates>”  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/certificate

In other words, a certificate is how things are to be certified!

Wallace’s Rebuttal) Wallace’s Question # 7) While I am asking questions, I will throw this one in there perhaps for my own future-personal use. Does God hate each and every single divorce? Please give references?

<Belknap’s Answer To Question # 7) God does not hate every divorce. God hates wrongful divorces, such as when one is “dealing treacherously” with their divinely obligated spouse as per Malachi 2:14-16. Although He is not pleased when a lawful divorce transpires, it is only because the sin of fornication has caused the break-up of a lawful marriage. Moreover, God is in fact well-pleased with the divorces of those who are involved in adulterous marriages, as evidence of fruits worthy of repentance.>

To which I agree!

Cordially,

Steven J. Wallace

Belknap’s Final Comment) In conclusion to these questions, answers, rebuttals and comments, I commend a thorough study of this exchange, and believe it will help those seeking truth to discern what the will of the Lord is (Eph. 5:17). – Jeff

Home | Search This Site