|
Exchange Started by O’Neal Martin ----- Original Message ----- From:
O’Neal Martin I intend to stand firm on the truth whether anyone agrees with me or not. Is the article below true or false? O’Neal Martin wanting to hear where you stand on these issuers below, for my own study and to find out who is willing to stand for the truth on all matters pertaining to our salvation. Of course I know you have the right to mot reply. I received this article and have known of these things before for quite awhile, and some of the men referred to. I would be pleases if any and all I have emailed this to would voice your convictions on this article, about the men named, and indeed the subject under discussion. I believe the article is true to the Bible IF the things said about these men are true. What they are accused of if they believe it, according to my knowledge is not from the Scripture. It is false to the core. I have emailed some men connected to the Truth Magazine about this matter but I have never received any reply. O’Neal Martin ----- Original Message ----- Don Martin sharing some thoughts: About the time that we think we have gone the spectrum relative MDR error, more players are introduced. Ron Halbrook has now become established as an advocate for the innocent put away, involving certain circumstances while their mate continues to live, being able to later put away and marry again. Ron and others claim this is not the old waiting game doctrine, but if not, it certainly has many commonalties. Both doctrines allow a putting away to take place after the fact of divorce. Mike Willis is now becoming famous for his multiple causes for divorce (both Ron and Mike refuse to formally discuss their teaching in a polemic climate, but they continue to teach their views). Mike advocates five reasons in addition to fornication for which one may divorce, even the matter of a mate running up bills and presenting a climate that is not conducive to spirituality. I just came out of an email circle including Mike, Ron, and most of the staff writers for Truth Magazine and they were all totally silent and refused to comment or discuss differences (silence when challenged appears to be their policy). “The error of Ron Halbrook and Mike Willis is not the same error as Homer Hailey advanced,” I am hearing from some. Since the error is not the same, we are supposed to not challenge it, ignore it, and fellowship it. I agree that all error is not the same in some respects. For instance, there are many, diverse particularities pertaining to error. The teaching that baptism is sprinkling is not the same error, for instance, as the teaching of the second chance doctrine associated with Premillennialism. However, they are both error, are they not? Both of these errors, while different in particularity, result in a failure to keep God’s commandments (Jas. 2: 10). They all, also, offer a false hope to people and, thus, dissuade the need of repentance and can involve sinful fellowship. Homer Hailey has gone down in history as the proponent of the alien sinner is not accountable to God’s marriage law. Hence, an alien could be in an “unscriptural marriage” at the time of baptism, but such is not a problem, providing he entered the marriage before he became a Christian. What is wrong with the alien sinner is not maritally accountable doctrine? (1). The doctrine of the lack of amenability of the non-Christian pertaining to God’s marriage law is error. God’s original law, the law that Jesus restored, applied to all men (Gen. 2: 24, 25, Matt. 19: 4ff.). (2). The doctrine of the lack of amenability regarding the non-Christian promotes and often results in practiced adultery and sinful fellowship. Mike Willis, Ron Halbrook, and many of the men associated with the Guardian of Truth Foundation and Truth Magazine correctly challenged, exposed, and refuted brother Hailey’s teaching. They also rebuked brethren who wanted the whole thing kept silent. Yes, what Hailey and now Willis and Halbrook are teaching is different, yet, it is the same. (1). Both Ron and Mike’s teaching goes against what is commanded. (2). Both Ron and Mike’s teaching promotes and often results in practiced adultery and sinful fellowship. Let me, if I may, illustrate what I mean. Ron says a put away person (the innocent mate) may subsequently put away and marry another while Jesus said all put away people, whether innocent or guilty, are not allowed to marry another, even after the putting away mate marries again (Matt. 5: 32, 19:9). Ron contends that such is not fair. However, Jesus taught it. Why would Jesus teach such a thing, Ron and others have asked in an overt effort to emotionally dismiss the teaching. There is no question about Jesus’ teaching that all put away people are, in fact, put away and forbidden a “second putting away” and later marriage to another, but it appears to me that such teaching is in place to preclude even the possibility for any waiting game practice and doctrine. In other words, if the divorce or putting away (apoluo) is not for the cause of fornication, then, all that follows is sinful (even the divorce is sinful, as we shall see). Jesus taught divorce for only one reason, fornication (Matt. 19: 9). However, Mike Willis uses human reasoning to conclude that one may divorce for additional reasons and not be sinning, providing they do not marry another. Notwithstanding, Paul taught that there is to be no divorce in the absence of fornication, but that each mate is to fulfill their domestic and conjugal duties (I Cor. 7: 2ff.). Mike has taken the, “But and if she depart” of I Corinthians 7: 11 and made it contradict verses 2 through 10. “But and if she depart” is not granting permission to have unscripturally divorced, but is showing that if either mate sins by divorcing without fornication being the reason, they need to realize that they are doomed to celibacy, never being able to scripturally marry another. The vast majority who divorce without fornication being the cause, will marry another. Hence, Mike’s teaching not only violates the command to remain together, but it presents the circumstance for adultery. Are Homer, Ron, and Mike teaching the same false doctrine pertaining to MDR? No. However, Homer, Ron, and Mike’s teaching all involve violating what God has said on the subject and, moreover, they all place the violator in practiced sin, and eventuate in sinful fellowship. Brethren, it is time that we cease playing word games and political positioning. Partiality is a sin especially condemned in the scriptures (Jas. 2). Besides being wrong within themselves, cliques cause the clique members to rally around one another and protect each other. The Guardian of Truth Foundation crew went after Homer Hailey in view of his errors on MDR, but now they are protecting some of their own members who are advocating MDR errors. Such is not only involving false doctrine and its fellowship, but this action is hypocrisy in the extreme! The present Guardian of Truth Foundation and Truth Magazine matter is unity-in-diversity personified. Cordially, ----- Original Message ----- From:
J Belknap Dear brother O’Neal, Everything brother Martin accused brothers Willis and Halbrook of teaching is absolutely TRUE. If you desire any documentation to verify his accusations, the overwhelming proof is available upon request. Your servant, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Brian A. Yeager Hello Brethren: I have been following the posts for a while and have been encouraged by Don’s willingness to defend the truth. I have been somewhat surprised of the silence from some of you who are on the opposite side of the truth as a discussion on this subject matter would be highly beneficial as souls are at stake and division has occurred. I am cold up here in Butler, PA so I thought I would jump in the pot to warm up <g>. Earl, I was reading your comments and I have a question for you based upon the following statement that you made in response to brother Martin’s comments. You said: “It appears to me that you are completely ignoring the fact that Jesus gives an exception, that allows a person who is innocent, and is divorced by a fornicator, the right to remarry.” How can someone who is put away (divorced), do the putting away? How can a marriage that has ended, end again? How can you undo something that is already undone? This debate over the words “in God’s eyes” (does anyone really think that God does not see unscriptural marriages and divorces – He sees, but does not approve; Romans 7:1-3?), etc. is foolish. In I Corinthians 7:8 Paul speaks to widows and those who have never been married. He calls those who have never been married “unmarried” [agamos]. Clearly, that term unmarried shows they are not in a marriage. If verses 10-11 we read of a marriage that ends for reasons other than fornication. Those two are then to remain “unmarried” (same word that applies to the never married person in verse 8) or be reconciled with one another. Those two in verses 10-11 are not married. Earl and others, how can a marriage that has ended be ended again? If one or the other spouse marries another that is an unfortunate situation for the other party, however they are still to remain unmarried. One might say that mental action would then be involved, but we see in Matthew 1:19 that mental action does not constitute as putting away. Even if mental action could result in a putting away, there is no marriage to end. Lastly, there is a cause and an effect in Matthew 19:9. The cause of fornication comes before the effect of putting away. If we understand the sequences of faith + baptism = salvation in Mark 16:15-16, we should be able to see the simplicity of Matthew 19:9. No one needs to twist and turn Scriptures or try to be Greek scholars. As one wise preacher once told me, “Greek is like underwear, you should wear in on the inside for support but never on the outside.” Brethren, some have tried to be too intelligent on their studies of the simplicity of God’s marriage law. The Lord hates putting away (Malachi 2:16). We should be teaching on the need to remain married and work through problems instead of how to find loopholes in God’s marriage law. I hope you all have a wonderful day and I sure hope this issue will be studied by all of us and that someday we could come to unity on this matter. Then we could start studying the foolish idea that we can agree in principle and disagree in application which is no different from saying we can have “unity in diversity”. Then we could talk about the need for human organizations to stop doing the work of the body of Christ (i.e. human organizations hosting worship services, gospel meetings, etc.). There are much more qualified men than I to respond, but they have been silent thus far. Hope my words can help. Brotherly, Brian A. Yeager ----- Original Message ----- From:
Pat Donahue O’Neal, I am not ashamed to say that I agree with you that our friend Mike’s teaching on this is patently false. As a matter of fact, his position seems to be way to the left of people I’ve heard in the past who held a similar position. I’ve known of gospel preachers who say you can get a divorce for reason other than fornication as long as you don’t remarry (Ron Halbrook, Maurice Barnett, Harry Lewis, etc.), but I don’t ever remember one saying you could do it to avoid financial problems, preserve mental health, or simply because of alienation/hostility. Truly Mike does not come close to believing in “one man for one woman FOR LIFE.” J.T. Smith was kind enough to print a short review of Mike’s sermon outline on this issue in “Gospel Truths” sometimes last year. You can view Mike’s outline and my review of it at: www.religiousinstructor.com/jul03/divorce.html If you could get Mike to debate the issue, I believe it would be a good opportunity for truth. Your brother, Pat ----- Original Message ----- From:
Tim Haile In his failed attempt to answer brother Earl Mitchell, Brian Yeager asked: “How can someone who is put away (divorced), do the putting away? How can a marriage that has ended, end again? How can you undo something that is already undone?” 1. Brian, your error stems from your failure to understand putting-away as what one does to his mate. Jesus spoke of one putting away (repudiating) his wife (lit. his “woman”) (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Lk. 16:18; Mk. 10:11) Or of a woman putting away her husband (lit. her “man”) (Mk. 10:12). He did not define divorce as mere spatial separation. In putting away a mate one does far more than place distance between himself and his spouse: He repudiates and rejects that mate. Such rejection is always “real” (God always “sees” it). Of course, the putting-away is not always approved. It may be unapproved by God. Using the Bible definition of apoluo two married people have the ability (not necessarily the right) to “put” each other “away.” It is called consensual divorce and we see it done quite often in our present society. I have personally dealt with several such cases. 2. You asked how a marriage that has already ended, end again. Your question has dangerous implications. Are you denying God’s binding of men and women to their marriage vows? Are you suggesting that all there is to a marriage is a mere physical togetherness? I hope not. If so, our present disagreement becomes meaningless, and the more pertinent issue becomes the question of the very nature of marriage and the marriage BOND. If no divine binding exists in connection with marriage, then by breaking the physical marriage relationship there is indeed, nothing more to break. And the consequence of such a position is unavoidably that both people would be free to marry others. This is rank heresy. One brother suggested this when he said, after a divorce has occurred “what is left to put away?” Jesus taught that an innocent spouse may put away his mate for fornication. Jesus did not condition this right upon whether or not some prior physical divorce action had been taken by the fornicator. You overlook the simple fact that, in Matthew 19:9, Jesus must have been speaking to the BOUND relationship when speaking of putting-away a mate, for how else would the innocent spouse be freed to marry another? If the bound relationship is not under consideration how can the innocent spouse who puts away his fornicator-mate be permitted to marry another? The discussion does not need to revolve around whether or not two married people can put each other away. They can. Two people make vows to each other in forming a marriage and those same two people might disavow each other in breaking a marriage. Both cannot be right in taking such action, but they have the ability to take it. The more important question is does anyone have the RIGHT to put his mate away. Jesus taught that a sexually innocent spouse may put his fornicating mate away and marry another (Matt. 19:9). This is where Bible believers should unite. Your position places exclusive emphasis upon the physical marriage relationship (marital status), and ignores the marriage BOND. You also ignore what the Bible actually says. Jesus NEVER spoke of one putting away a marriage relationship. He spoke of one putting away “his woman” or “her man.” 3. You asked how one could undo something that has already been undone. God’s binding of two people to their marital vows and promises has not been “undone.” I am surprised at your line of reasoning and questioning. You seem to deny the reality of God’s binding (often called the marriage “bond”) of people in marriage. Your position is unbiblical and wrong. Tim Haile +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This debate over the words “in God’s eyes” (does anyone really think that God does not see unscriptural marriages and divorces – He sees, but does not approve; Romans 7:1-3?), etc. is foolish. In I Corinthians 7:8 Paul speaks to widows and those who have never been married. He calls those who have never been married “unmarried” [agamos]. Clearly, that term unmarried shows they are not in a marriage. If verses 10-11 we read of a marriage that ends for reasons other than fornication. Those two are then to remain “unmarried” (same word that applies to the never married person in verse 8) or be reconciled with one another. Those two in verses 10-11 are not married. Earl and others, how can a marriage that has ended be ended again? If one or the other spouse marries another that is an unfortunate situation for the other party, however they are still to remain unmarried. One might say that mental action would then be involved, but we see in Matthew 1:19 that mental action does not constitute as putting away. Even if mental action could result in a putting away, there is no marriage to end. Lastly, there is a cause and an effect in Matthew 19:9. The cause of fornication comes before the effect of putting away. If we understand the sequences of faith + baptism = salvation in Mark 16:15-16, we should be able to see the simplicity of Matthew 19:9. No one needs to twist and turn Scriptures or try to be Greek scholars. As one wise preacher once told me, “Greek is like underwear, you should wear in on the inside for support but never on the outside.” Brethren, some have tried to be too intelligent on their studies of the simplicity of God’s marriage law. The Lord hates putting away (Malachi 2:16). We should be teaching on the need to remain married and work through problems instead of how to find loopholes in God’s marriage law. I hope you all have a wonderful day and I sure hope this issue will be studied by all of us and that someday we could come to unity on this matter. Then we could start studying the foolish idea that we can agree in principle and disagree in application which is no different from saying we can have “unity in diversity”. Then we could talk about the need for human organizations to stop doing the work of the body of Christ (i.e. human organizations hosting worship services, gospel meetings, etc.). There are much more qualified men than I to respond, but they have been silent thus far. Hope my words can help. Brotherly, Brian A. Yeager ----- Original Message ----- From:
Brian A. Yeager Dear Tim: Thank you for your response and for your desire to discuss these issues. In this, you are more honorable than many who hold the same false position that you do. That being said, I am very interested in answering you on the points that you made and I hope that you will study what I will present to you from the word of God. Your false conclusions are obviously based on a misunderstanding of what a marriage is and what it means for a man to be bound to a woman. I hope to answer those misconceptions. I know that there are some who would be better skilled in doing so, and I hope they will chime in where I fail to make the points clearly. Let me also say that several of the points you made below really have nothing to do with the issue. I hope we can stay tuned to what this division is all about. 1. Tim says: “Jesus spoke of one putting away (repudiating) his wife (lit. his “woman”) (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Lk. 16:18; Mk. 10:11) . Or of a woman putting away her husband (lit. her “man”) (Mk. 10:12). He did not define divorce as mere spatial separation. In putting away a mate one does far more than place distance between himself and his spouse: He repudiates and rejects that mate. Such rejection is always “real” (God always “sees” it).” Brian responds: I never said that putting away is merely a spatial separation. You wasted time making your point, as it was not a counter to anything that I said. 2. Tim wrote: “your error stems from your failure to understand putting-away as what one does to his mate.” Brian responds: Tim, I fully understand that putting away is an action and I have dictionaries that define “apoluō”. When a man or a woman takes the action of “putting away” his or her spouse, the marriage is over. It seems that you are afraid of talking about ending the marriage. Why is that, Tim? 3. Tim wrote, in part: “You asked how a marriage that has already ended, end again. Your question has dangerous implications. Are you denying God’s binding of men and women to their marriage vows? Are you suggesting that all there is to a marriage is a mere physical togetherness?” Brian responds (to Tim’s second point below): Tim, this truly is where the disagreement of this issue stems. You have spent so much time twisting in the wind over trying to take the word marriage and attach the word bond to it to make two separate things one in the same that you have missed the simplicity of the issue. I spend much time in study to understand things so that I can explain them so that the cows can get it and the calves can too. I will attempt to make some clarifications in hopes they will help everyone in their studies. a. The binding of a man and a woman is as Paul wrote: “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband” (Romans 7:2). A married man and a woman are bound by the law of the Lord to each other for life. The binding of that marriage is recognized by God according to His law based upon the union of a couple who have the right to marry in the first place. The only way that a man or a woman is LAWFULLY free to have another mate is if the MARRIAGE ends through the innocent party putting away (divorces) his or her mate who has committed fornication (Matthew 19:9). b. While being bound to each other for life, one or both parties have the ability to UNLAWFULLY end their marriage and even to UNLAWFULLY be married to another. This illustrates that there is a difference between the marriage and what it means to be bound. The statements I made are shown in the following Scripture: “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man” (Romans 7:3). c. Some points of illustration to help in understanding the above two points: • Mary and Joe have been married for ten years. Mary divorces Joe because he works too much. The marriage is over. This is shown in Paul’s Epistle to the brethren in Corinth. Paul wrote: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart [to leave a husband or a wife; of divorce – Thayer; page 674], let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife” (I Corinthians 7:10-11). Mary and Joe are just as unmarried as a widow or someone who has never before been married. How do we know this? Paul used the word unmarried that is the same in the KJV and the Greek in I Corinthians 7:8: “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.” Now, Mary and Joe are divorced. Yet, they are still bound to each other. They are unmarried, but they are still bound to each other. The marriage is over. The bond is intact. They are free only to reconcile (I Corinthians 7:10-11). They have broken their vows, they have severed their marriage, but they are bound to each other as long as they both shall live. There is NO WAY to change that. • If Mary decides that she wants to meet Bill and marry him, marry is an “adulteress” (Romans 7:3). She is just as married as she was before. If Joe decides to marry Nancy after is previous wife Mary joins together with Bill, he is an “adulteress” (Romans 7:3). If Joe thinks, as does Tim Haile and others on this list of discussion, that he can somehow put away Mary before he looks for another mate since she married Bill, he has said something the Lord has not said. They are married to others while bound to each other. • Tim would answer me by saying, as he did below: “Your position places exclusive emphasis upon the physical marriage relationship (marital status), and ignores the marriage BOND. You also ignore what the Bible actually says. Jesus NEVER spoke of one putting away a marriage relationship. He spoke of one putting away “his woman” or “her man.” • Well Tim, I searched every concordance I have and I cannot for the life of me find the phrase “marriage bond”. I contend that the only thing in the hands of men is the relationship that is either joined together called “marriage” or ended by what we call “divorce”. As illustrated earlier, when a man or a woman end the marriage, they are now “unmarried”. Those are Paul’s words, through inspiration (I Corinthians 7:10-11), not mine. You ought to wrangle with the Holy Spirit if you do not like those words. 4. Tim concluded his email to me by writing: “You asked how one could undo something that has already been undone. God’s binding of two people to their marital vows and promises have not been “undone.” I am surprised at your line of reasoning and questioning. You seem to deny the reality of God’s binding (often called the marriage “bond”) of people in marriage. Your position is unbiblical and wrong.” Brian responds: I am still waiting for the answer. I agree that when a marriage ends for reasons other than fornication that both parties are still bound to one another. I stated such earlier with Scriptures. The marriage however, is over. There is nothing to end. Paul says they are “unmarried” and I contend the same. Fornication is the exception to one man and one woman for life (Matthew 19:3-9). The cause of fornication, based on Matthew 19:9, must occur before the effect of the “putting away”. Such is true of baptism occurring before the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). This is simple. Tim, if you could show me to be wrong through the Scriptures I would be glad to accept and I would repent of my false teaching. I would go one step further, are you G.O.T. guys listening, I would separate myself from those who teach what you think are teaching error whom I currently have no problem associating with. I would do so because I would realize I would be partaking in their evil deeds (II John 9-11). This issue is not difficult. There are not many Scriptures that one needs to study on this subject matter. Come on brethren. This is sad!!
Brotherly, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Don Martin Hello all, Don Martin here with a brief comment and plea. Brian Yeager has responded to the email circle and now Tim Haile has responded to Brian in the email circle climate. Both Brain and Tim are intelligent men who hold different views. Both have made some explanatory and challenging statements that I commend to you for your consideration. Much of the essential dividing issue relative to this particular nuance of MDR is being addressed, please study it and consider it well. I personally thank Brian and Tim for their time and courage of their conviction to speak out. This is certainly more than is characteristic of Mike Willis, Ron Halbrook, and some others. There was a time that Tim Haile and I together took on all willing errorists and it deeply saddens me that Tim and I have ended up on the opposite side of this MDR issue. However, truth must take priority over all earthly friendships, family members, and clique associations (I am not saying Tim was ever in a clique). Don Martin ----- Original Message ----- From:
J Belknap Dear Tim, Brian and all, Brother Gene Frost wrote an excellent article in Gospel Truths (January, 2004) entitled Marriage And Bond. In this article, brother Frost not only reveals how men err by confusing these two, but also shows from the scriptures how “the bond” is the spiritual obligation, whereas “the marriage” refers to the physical relationship. As was accurately articulated by brother Yeager, man may marry and/or divorce against the will of God, but the marriage and/or divorce is nevertheless REAL and complete (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:10-11). If the marriage is divinely approved, God will bind (obligate) the involved parties to one another. Similarly, if a mate puts away his/her “one flesh” partner for the cause of fornication, God will loose him/her from the bond or obligation that He enjoined upon them in their scriptural marriage. God alone does the binding and/or loosing, but only when the right conditions have been met. According to the scriptures, one may REmarry another with God’s approval if... 1) Their bound partner dies (Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:39). In this instance, we know by faith that God has loosed the bond (divine obligation)! 2) They put away their “one flesh” mate “for fornication,” and are thus the one responsible for putting asunder (separating) the “one flesh” relationship (Matthew 19:3, 6, 9). This putting away (apoluo) or putting asunder (chorizo) is the very opposite of to marry. Just as to marry makes “two” become “one flesh,” (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5), to put away makes the “one flesh” become “two” again (Matthew 19:6). Divorce is the undoing of the marriage. Only when this is done “for fornication” did Jesus authorize the one who put away the fornicator to marry another while their original mate lives. At this time we know by faith that God has loosed the bond (divine obligation) and will subsequently bind “another” approved mate! Scripture reveals that whether two people lawfully marry (I Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 13:4a) or not (Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b; Mark 6:17-18; Luke 16:18b; Romans 7:3), the action results in the two being married whether God binds (obligates) them or not. Additionally, scripture also reveals that whether the ending of the marriage is for just cause (Matthew 5:32; 19:9) or not, it results in two “unmarried” people (I Corinthians 7:10-11). God will not loose either party at the time of a wrongful divorce, but Jesus recognized that a divorce has occurred in every sense of the word (Matthew 5:32; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18) which Paul said resulted in the two becoming “unmarried” (I Corinthians 7:10-11). Since “the exception clause” does not apply in this instance (post-divorce), the only remarriage option revealed in scripture at such a time is reconciliation (I Corinthians 7:11). Conclusion: When one looks to scripture instead of the wisdom of man, he will find that every time the Bible speaks of divorce, it is in the context of sundering an intact, “one-flesh” relationship. Never once does the Bible portray “putting away” one’s obligated mate when they are no longer in a “one flesh” relationship. There is absolutely NO scripture whatsoever for a “second ‘putting away’” (or the ending of a marriage that has already been terminated). A second “putting away” is as foreign to the word of God as instrumental music in church worship, premillenialism, Easter and/or Christmas. Brotherly, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From:
Tim Haile Jeff Belknap wrote: “Dear Tim, Brian and all, “Brother Gene Frost wrote an excellent article in Gospel Truths (January, 2004) entitled Marriage And Bond. In this article, brother Frost not only reveals how men err by confusing these two, but also shows from the scriptures how “the bond” is the spiritual obligation, whereas “the marriage” refers to the physical relationship.” Brother Frost is correct. I have never taught differently. As many on this list already know, I have repeatedly observed the difference between “marriage” and “bound,” citing passages like Mark 6:17,18; Matt. 19:6 and Rom. 7:2-3. A person can be “married” to one person while “bound” to another. Jeff continued: “As was accurately articulated by brother Yeager, man may marry and/or divorce against the will of God, but the marriage and/or divorce is nevertheless REAL and complete (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:10-11). If the marriage is divinely approved, God will bind (obligate) the involved parties to one another. Similarly, if a mate puts away his/her “one flesh” partner for the cause of fornication, God will loose him/her from the bond or obligation that He enjoined upon them in their scriptural marriage.” Brother Yeager is preaching to the choir. I have never denied the reality of a divorce. Anytime a person rejects his mate, refusing to fulfill the responsibilities divinely enjoined upon him towards that mate, he has REALLY put his mate away. It is a REAL divorce. Jeff continued: “God alone does the binding and/or loosing, but only when the right conditions have been met.” I Agree. “According to the scriptures, one may REmarry another with God’s approval if... “1) Their bound partner dies (Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:39). In this instance, we know by faith that God has loosed the bond (divine obligation)! “2) They put away their “one flesh” mate “for fornication,” and are thus the one responsible for putting asunder (separating) the “one flesh” relationship (Matthew 19:3, 6, 9). This putting away (apoluo) or putting asunder (chorizo) is the very opposite of to marry. Just as to marry makes “two” become “one flesh,” (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5), to put away makes the “one flesh” become “two” again (Matthew 19:6). Divorce is the undoing of the marriage. Only when this is done “for fornication” did Jesus authorize the one who put away the fornicator to marry another while their original mate lives. At this time we know by faith that God has loosed the bond (divine obligation) and will subsequently bind “another” approved mate!” You are wrong about apoluo and chorizo. Apoluo is what one does to his mate. By taking the action of apoluo, one repudiates or dismisses his mate. Chorizo emphasizes the physical consequence of that action. There is a “departing” or “sundering” of the physical relationship. Jeff, you and Brian Yeager have now fulfilled a prediction that I made over 2 years ago. Your position allows an innocent spouse to put away his fornicator-mate only in cases where the innocent spouse is able to be the one to physically “leave” or “depart” from the fornicator. Your position does not allow an innocent spouse to put his mate away for fornication if the fornicator had already “departed” before committing his fornication. I know a young man who recently repudiated and departed from his bound wife IN ORDER TO FIND ANOTHER WOMAN! He found one just after divorcing his innocent wife. Your position does not allow this innocent, godly woman to do what Jesus said she could do. You continued: “Scripture reveals that whether two people lawfully marry (I Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 13:4a) or not (Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b; Mark 6:17-18; Luke 16:18b; Romans 7:3), the action results in the two being married whether God binds (obligates) them or not.” I have taught this repeatedly over the past 25 years. “Additionally, scripture also reveals that whether the ending of the marriage is for just cause (Matthew 5:32; 19:9) or not, it results in two “unmarried” people (I Corinthians 7:10-11). God will not loose either party at the time of a wrongful divorce, but Jesus recognized that a divorce has occurred in every sense of the word (Matthew 5:32; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18) which Paul said resulted in the two becoming “unmarried” (I Corinthians 7:10-11). Since “the exception clause” does not apply in this instance (post-divorce), the only remarriage option revealed in scripture at such a time is reconciliation (I Corinthians 7:11).” This is also correct. In the absence of fornication neither party has the right to marry another. You continued: “Conclusion: When one looks to scripture instead of the wisdom of man, he will find that every time the Bible speaks of divorce, it is in the context of sundering an intact, “one-flesh” relationship. Never once does the Bible portray “putting away” one’s obligated mate when they are no longer in a “one flesh” relationship. “There is absolutely NO scripture whatsoever for a “second ‘putting away’” (or the ending of a marriage that has already been terminated). A second “putting away” is as foreign to the word of God as instrumental music in church worship, premillenialism, Easter and/or Christmas.” Jeff, I assume that you have someone in mind who believes in a “second putting away,” but it can’t be me. A person sins by putting his mate away not for fornication and then divorcing him again, a second time, when fornication is later committed (Matt. 5:32). I believe in the unconditional right of a faithful spouse to put his mate away for fornication. This is ONE putting-away exercised by him. Your sophistry may fool some, but it is easily exposed by the Truth. When two people simultaneously put each other away, two puttings-away have occurred, but no one did a “second” putting-away. Two people vowed before the divine witness (Mal. 2:14) in forming the marriage, and two people have the ability to disavow each other. I know of a case where a man committed fornication against his wife and wanted to divorce her in order to marry his girlfriend. BOTH the man and his wife went to the courthouse at the same time to divorce each other. The fornicator divorced his innocent wife in order to fornicate more. The innocent wife divorced her fornicating husband because of his fornication. Both people put each other away. Her putting away was approved and his was unapproved. This is simple. I don’t know how you keep missing it. Tim Haile Brotherly, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From:
Tim Haile Brother Yeager, I found it interesting that you commented to me that I made “several points” that “have nothing to do with the issue.” Brother, you made several points that prove that you know very little of my position! It is indeed a folly and a shame to answer a matter before you hear it. Precious time is wasted. Brian wrote: “I never said that putting away is merely a spatial separation. You wasted time making your point, as it was not a counter to anything that I said.” And I never said that you “said that putting away is merely spatial a separation.” I was stating what you shy away from stating – the unavoidable consequence of your position. I will not here speak to this point, for I covered it in my response to Jeff Belknap. Brian continued: “Tim, I fully understand that putting away is an action and I have dictionaries that define “apoluō”. When a man or a woman takes the action of “putting away” his or her spouse, the marriage is over. It seems that you are afraid of talking about ending the marriage. Why is that, Tim?” I felt no need to talk about something that I have stated dozens of times in every format possible: Yes, divorce ends the one flesh relationship. I will not here reiterate my points concerning God’s binding (literally “yoking” see the Gr. for “joined” in Matthew 19:6) of eligible men and women in marriage. Brian continued: “Tim, this truly is where the disagreement of this issue stems. You have spent so much time twisting in the wind over trying to take the word marriage and attach the word bond to it to make two separate things one in the same that you have missed the simplicity of the issue. I spend much time in study to understand things so that I can explain them so that the cows can get it and the calves can too. I will attempt to make some clarifications in hopes they will help everyone in their studies.” Wow! Brian as much as admits to the position that I feared he was headed towards. The binder becomes the looser. Brian doesn’t like my references to the marriage bond. That’s okay Brian. I fast-forwarded through your position along time ago and I saw where it would go. You are at least consistent – consistently wrong! Though the Bible doesn't speak of the marriage bond, it does speak of people being "bound" in marriage (Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:27, 39). There is indeed a bond between things that are “bound.” Thus, there is nothing wrong with using the expression “marriage bond.” The concept is biblical. However, the marriage bond is not a mysterious, mystical, magical thing. When one thinks of the marriage bond he should think in terms of God's binding of people to their marriage vows and promises. God binds an eligible man and an eligible woman to each other on the basis of their marriage vows. Malachi 2:14 tells us that God is “witness” between a man and the wife of his covenant. The adulteress of Proverbs 2:17 was wrong for forsaking the companion of her youth and for forgetting the covenant of her God. Ezekiel 16:8 describes God as entering into a (marriage) covenant with Judah. By asking if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause, the Pharisees were asking if a man could be released from his marriage vows by putting away his wife for just any cause. Jesus explained that God binds people to their vows for life. Other than the release that automatically takes place upon the death of one's mate (Romans 7:2,3), God has promised to release one from his marriage vows for only one cause: fornication. A faithful spouse is permitted to put his mate away for fornication and for no other cause (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Matthew 19:9 also teaches that, in such cases, God releases the innocent spouse from his marriage vows, thus freeing him to marry another. Those who put away their mates not for fornication are guilty of violating their marriage vows. They are "covenant-breakers" (Rom. 1:31). Such people are not permitted to remarry because God has not released them from their marriage vows (Matthew 5:32). The same is true with the put-away fornicator. God does not release him from his marriage vows, therefore, he is not authorized to marry another. Tim Haile a. The binding of a man and a woman is as Paul wrote: “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband” (Romans 7:2). A married man and a woman are bound by the law of the Lord to each other for life. The binding of that marriage is recognized by God according to His law based upon the union of a couple who have the right to marry in the first place. The only way that a man or a woman is LAWFULLY free to have another mate is if the MARRIAGE ends through the innocent party putting away (divorces) his or her mate who has committed fornication (Matthew 19:9). b. While being bound to each other for life, one or both parties have the ability to UNLAWFULLY end their marriage and even to UNLAWFULLY be married to another. This illustrates that there is a difference between the marriage and what it means to be bound. The statements I made are shown in the following Scripture: “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man” (Romans 7:3). c. Some points of illustration to help in understanding the above two points: • Mary and Joe have been married for ten years. Mary divorces Joe because he works too much. The marriage is over. This is shown in Paul’s Epistle to the brethren in Corinth. Paul wrote: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart [to leave a husband or a wife; of divorce – Thayer; page 674], let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife” (I Corinthians 7:10-11). Mary and Joe are just as unmarried as a widow or someone who has never before been married. How do we know this? Paul used the word unmarried that is the same in the KJV and the Greek in I Corinthians 7:8: “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.” Now, Mary and Joe are divorced. Yet, they are still bound to each other. They are unmarried, but they are still bound to each other. The marriage is over. The bond is intact. They are free only to reconcile (I Corinthians 7:10-11). They have broken their vows, they have severed their marriage, but they are bound to each other as long as they both shall live. There is NO WAY to change that. • If Mary decides that she wants to meet Bill and marry him, marry is an “adulteress” (Romans 7:3). She is just as married as she was before. If Joe decides to marry Nancy after is previous wife Mary joins together with Bill, he is an “adulteress” (Romans 7:3). If Joe thinks, as does Tim Haile and others on this list of discussion, that he can somehow put away Mary before he looks for another mate since she married Bill, he has said something the Lord has not said. They are married to others while bound to each other. • Tim would answer me by saying, as he did below: “Your position places exclusive emphasis upon the physical marriage relationship (marital status), and ignores the marriage BOND. You also ignore what the Bible actually says. Jesus NEVER spoke of one putting away a marriage relationship. He spoke of one putting away “his woman” or “her man.” • Well Tim, I searched every concordance I have and I cannot for the life of me find the phrase “marriage bond”. I contend that the only thing in the hands of men is the relationship that is either joined together called “marriage” or ended by what we call “divorce”. As illustrated earlier, when a man or a woman end the marriage, they are now “unmarried”. Those are Paul’s words, through inspiration (I Corinthians 7:10-11), not mine. You ought to wrangle with the Holy Spirit if you do not like those words. 4. Tim concluded his email to me by writing: “You asked how one could undo something that has already been undone. God’s binding of two people to their marital vows and promises have not been “undone.” I am surprised at your line of reasoning and questioning. You seem to deny the reality of God’s binding (often called the marriage “bond”) of people in marriage. Your position is unbiblical and wrong.” Brian responds: I am still waiting for the answer. I agree that when a marriage ends for reasons other than fornication that both parties are still bound to one another. I stated such earlier with Scriptures. The marriage however, is over. There is nothing to end. Paul says they are “unmarried” and I contend the same. Fornication is the exception to one man and one woman for life (Matthew 19:3-9). The cause of fornication, based on Matthew 19:9, must occur before the effect of the “putting away”. Such is true of baptism occurring before the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). This is simple. Tim, if you could show me to be wrong through the Scriptures I would be glad to accept and I would repent of my false teaching. I would go one step further, are you G.O.T. guys listening, I would separate myself from those who teach what you think are teaching error whom I currently have no problem associating with. I would do so because I would realize I would be partaking in their evil deeds (II John 9-11). This issue is not difficult. There are not many Scriptures that one needs to study on this subject matter. Come on brethren. This is sad!! Brotherly, Brian A. Yeager ----- Original Message ----- From:
Don Martin Hello Tim and All, An observer to your email, Jeff, and Brian’s might conclude that each of you is saying the same thing. However, I do not believe this to be the case. You, Tim, speak of believing that only the innocent mate may put away the guilty mate and be able to marry another. You also speak of not believing in “a second putting away.” Here is a probative question for you that might help all see some of the difference in word usage, concept, and application: Do you believe Jack (the innocent mate) may put away Jane totally detached from any applicable civil connection, this action taking place AFTER Jane has put away (repudiation and civil procedure) Jack? Even prior to Jack and Jane experiencing marriage failure, do you believe any germaine civil procedure was necessary to their conjugal relationship constituting marriage, biblically considered, as opposed to a simple shack up circumstance? Knowing Tim, he will forthrightly answer these questions and thus show some of the differences in terms being used. Don Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Yeager Dear Tim: I appreciate your response. Let me first begin by apologizing if my wording is not clear. I am tired and am going to bed after finishing this email. I am only up late because of some pressing matters that I had to deal with. Additionally, on Sunday mornings I drive a 160 mile round trip to pick up one of our widows for worship. Thus, I am in a hurry to get to bed. Tim, this should be an honest study, not a play on words. I should not have to nail you down with specific questions to expose your position. You are wiggling in your wording. Why not be forthright and clear on what you believe? Our goal should be to study this issue and aim to be unified in truth. It should not be a game of words or tactics. You are playing some in your correspondences here. For example, you said to Jeff: “Jeff, I assume that you have someone in mind who believes in a “second putting away,” but it can’t be me. A person sins by putting his mate away not for fornication and then divorcing him again, a second time, when fornication is later committed (Matt. 5:32).” I understand that you are opposed to the “waiting game” by practice, as such. However, do you not believe that a second putting away can occur wherein a marriage has already ended through a first putting away? Haven’t you argued that point even this day? You wrote to Jeff saying: “Your position does not allow an innocent spouse to put his mate away for fornication if the fornicator had already “departed” before committing his fornication.” Assuming that you are using the word “departed” based upon I Corinthians 7:10-11, I see that you are arguing a second putting away, for one has already happened. Answer me this: if Dan divorces his wife Debbie (who fights to keep her marriage alive) for reasons other than fornication and Dan later has a sexual relationship followed by a marriage to another woman, can Debbie put him away for fornication and be free to remarry? If so, how is this a first putting away? Where is the Scripture for a post-divorce divorce? I agree with the words, though you apply different meanings to them, of your final two paragraphs in response to me. I have no problem understanding your position. I fully understand what the bond is, my concern is that you are trying to make the marriage and the bond the same thing, when they truly are separate (i.e. a marriage is over and the bond can still be intact). I have not misstated my case nor misunderstood yours. Our disagreement comes in our different understandings of when one has a spouse to put away and when they no longer have a spouse to put away. Your position is as follows (from what YOU have written): “The physical marriage relationship is sundered by a putting-away (Matt. 19:6)”… “The godless party may have already broken the physical “one-flesh” relationship.” “They are still “husband” and “wife” because they remain bound by God…” “As along as an innocent mate has a “husband” or a “wife,” that innocent mate has the right to put away his husband or wife on the grounds of fornication.” That of course is from your words of 10/9/2003: http://www.biblebanner.com/articles/mdr/whatput.htm Today, you responded to Jeff saying: “Your position does not allow an innocent spouse to put his mate away for fornication if the fornicator had already “departed” before committing his fornication.” Tim, one cannot take action (depart, repudiate, divorce, etc.) to end a marriage that has already ended. When a husband and / or a wife divorces his or her mate, they are no longer married. You agree with that by your statement to me: “Yes, divorce ends the one flesh relationship.” Tim, this makes a couple unmarried (I Corinthians 7:10-11). You have the tendency in your writings, from my observation, to change terms and apply meanings to them by implications that are not valid. For example, you have contended in your writings that Paul still refers to the man as the woman’s husband in the present tense in I Corinthians 7:10-11 and Romans 7:2-3. In truth, she is not married and he is not currently her husband any more than the widow is still married to her dead husband (Romans 7:2; 3). Yes, as I stated earlier, they are bound to each other; but they are not married to one another. Thus, a putting away of one’s mate to end the marriage cannot occur. I wrote what I wrote earlier, and now, because your position contends that: “… two people remain “husband” and “wife” even after one has departed from the other” (http://www.biblebanner.com/articles/mdr/whatput.htm). As I stated earlier: “Paul wrote: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart [to leave a husband or a wife; of divorce – Thayer; page 674], let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife” (I Corinthians 7:10-11). Mary and Joe are just as unmarried as a widow or someone who has never before been married. How do we know this? Paul used the word unmarried that is the same in the KJV and the Greek in I Corinthians 7:8: “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.” Brotherly, Brian A. Yeager ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Haile Don, You ask good and fair questions. As most of you know, I am preparing for a debate with my long-time friend, brother J.T. Smith. Though I will not be able to continue lengthy written exchanges with multiple disputants, I want to answer things that I deem to be germane to this discussion of our differences. I realize that some of my comments may be introduced in the debate, and that will be fine. I am interested in knowing and defending the Truth. If I am wrong I want to be shown, and if I am in error I want my error to be as publicly exposed as is possible. Don Martin wrote: “An observer to your email, Jeff, and Brian’s might conclude that each of you is saying the same thing. However, I do not believe this to be the case. You, Tim, speak of believing that only the innocent mate may put away the guilty mate and be able to marry another. You also speak of not believing in “a second putting away.” Here is a probative question for you that might help all see some of the difference in word usage, concept, and application: “Do you believe Jack (the innocent mate) may put away Jane totally detached from any applicable civil connection, this action taking place AFTER Jane has put away (repudiation and civil procedure) Jack?” Yes, I believe that the innocent spouse (Jack, in this scenario), one faithful to his marriage vows, may put his fornicator-mate away and marry another, per Matthew 19:9. Don, your question implies that you are back to your theory that biblical putting-away is entirely synonymous with civil divorce procedure. Is this true? If so, would you be willing to affirm such in public, oral debate? If so, I would be happy to deny such a position, for I believe it constitutes rank heresy. Let me know if you are interested in debating that precise point. Others are frightened to death of it. Don continued: “Even prior to Jack and Jane experiencing marriage failure, do you believe any germaine [sic] civil procedure was necessary to their conjugal relationship constituting marriage, biblically considered, as opposed to a simple shack up circumstance?” Don uses loaded, prejudicial language to tilt the question in his favor. This reminds me of those who mock some, charging them with believing that two people can get married “in the back seat of a car.” They intend, by such language, to prejudice minds by suggesting the sin of fornication. But what about the outdoor wedding that is unexpectedly rained out, so the preacher tells the couple to run to the car and he will finish the ceremony there? Was there anything wrong with them getting married “in the back seat of a car?” No, but the prejudice is removed and no one thinks any less of the couple for getting married “in the back seat of a car.” Don, is it possible for God to bind a man and a woman in marriage in a culture that does not regulate marriage? Is it possible for an eligible man and an eligible woman do what Adam and Eve did in being yoked by God? Is there no marriage apart from a “legal” marriage? Is God’s marriage law negated by societies and cultures that have no “civil procedure” for getting married? Civil compliance is necessary provided that it doesn’t set aside the law of God. In order to be “legally” married, two people must comply with the applicable laws and requirements of their society. This is separate from, and in addition to the requirements of God’s law. In other words, if all federal, state and local marriage laws were rescinded, eligible men and women could still be joined by God in marriage. God’s marriage law is distinct from, and unaffected by man’s godless civil decrees. To be joined by God in marriage, an eligible man and eligible woman must do what God’s law requires them to do. To be “legally” married (civil procedure), two (or more) people, eligible (or not), man and woman (or not, ex. Gay marriage), must do what man’s law requires. Being legally married is a separate thing from being bound in marriage by God. Millions of people are living in adultery because they are divinely bound to one person, while being legally married to someone else. This fact alone proves that the two are not the same. God does not wait to see how the legislators and courts are going to rule before He decides what establishes a marriage. Is that forthright enough? (grin) Tim Haile Knowing Tim, he will forthrightly answer these questions and thus show some of the differences in terms being used. Don Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: J Belknap Dear brother Tim, I am thankful that we agree on some things. Let’s discuss our major difference. You wrote: “Two people vowed before the divine witness (Mal. 2:14) in forming the marriage, and two people have the ability to disavow each other.” The definition of “assertion” is “a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary).” http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assertion However, we are commanded to “prove” what we teach (I Thessalonians 5:21; I Peter 4:11; cf. Isaiah 8:20; I John 4:1, 5-6). Where is the scripture for this teaching? Tim asserts that because both parties vow in forming a marriage, that the inverse of that truth is also necessarily true. (He claims that for an unapproved divorce to be consequential to both parties, both parties must “disavow.”) This is clearly human reason, for although the New Testament portrays marriage as taking place between two willing partners, it undeniably portrays wrongful divorce (unapproved sundering, Matthew 19:6/unmarry-ing, I Cor. 7:11) as occurring by one mate dealing “treacherously” against the other (Malachi 2:14, 16; Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; I Corinthians 7:10-11; et al). Yet we clearly see brother Haile’s inconsistency when he claims that there is something left for a person to “put away” after they have been divorced. However, this is nowhere authorized in THE BOOK. Scripture teaches that only God binds, and since it nowhere indicates that man has the power to loose that bond, the inverse is necessarily true: that God alone has the power to loose what He bound. And scripture only portrays loosing as being done when one puts away his “one flesh” mate for the cause of fornication. Tim, where is the scripture that teaches that an “unmarried” (I Corinthians 7:11) person who “is divorced” (Matthew 5:32b) / “put away” (Matthew 19:9b) may subsequently “‘disavow’ for fornication” and marry another? Your assertions are not the word of God. You can search the scriptures till the second coming of Christ for your teaching, but you will look in vain. Marriage commences the life of a physical union. It signifies the birth of the “one flesh” relationship that was formed by two individuals (Matthew 19:5-6). Divorce ends the life of the “one flesh” relationship (signifying its death for both partners) – regardless of whether one or both agreed to it. A scenario in point: If Dan and Debbie conceived a child together, and Debbie chose to sinfully abort the baby (signifying its physical death) against Dan’s wishes, the baby would still be dead. Though the baby’s soul would live on, innocent Dan, who wished to save the baby’s physical life, would have no control over it once all was said and done. God alone is in charge of the soul, just as He alone is in charge of the bond, once a marriage dies due to divorce. Once the “one flesh” relationship is broken by one or both, it is terminated. Innocent or guilty, neither can “put away” a mate who is already “away,” nor can either party “depart from” the other who is already long gone. The post-divorce “putting away” theory is absolutely unbiblical. Moreover, the reference of “husband” and/or “wife” after the dissolution of the marriage does not in any way authorize a post-divorce (second) “putting away.” What proves too much proves NOTHING! This same reference is also used after DEATH: Acts 5:9 says that Ananias was dead when Peter stated, “the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door” (emp. jhb). Matthew 22:24-30; Romans 7:3 and I Corinthians 7:39 clearly teach that, upon the death of one spouse, the marriage is dissolved. Yet, in such cases, the Bible uses the terms, “husband” and “wife” in reference to both the partner who died and the remaining spouse. Similarly, in John 4:15-18, although the Lord asked the woman to summon her “husband,” Jesus and the woman later agreed that the man she was with was not really her husband. Moreover, in John 4:18 the Lord said to this woman, “For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband.” Cf. II Sam. 12:15, “And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.” Cp. w. II Sam. 11:26; 12:9-10 Cf. Mt. 22:24-25, “Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.” Brotherly, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Martin Hello Tim and All, I do not want to interfere, Tim, with the discussion you and Brian are having or give the impression of unfairly ganging up on you, Tim, but I asked you some questions and you answered them and, now, you have posed some questions for me. Since these questions are relevant to the present discussion, I shall at this time and in this email circle reply. By the way, this circle could afford Mike Willis the opportunity to join in. The object of each disputant in a dialectic exchange is to point out what they believe to be the most vulnerable weakness characteristic of the opposing view. This is the way it should be. Tim, first, thanks for the reply to me on this email circle. I asked Tim the following and Tim answered, first quoting my question: “Do you believe Jack (the innocent mate) may put away Jane totally detached from any applicable civil connection, this action taking place AFTER Jane has put away (repudiation and civil procedure) Jack?” Yes, I believe that the innocent spouse (Jack, in this scenario), one faithful to his marriage vows, may put his fornicator-mate away and marry another, per Matthew 19:9. Don comments: Tim, you are not as explicit and overt as you used to be in providing such an answer; nonetheless, you did answer the question, “yes.” You and I both believe the innocent mate may put away and marry another, but your circumstances and added teaching is what makes us miles apart in application. (Ron Halbrook and others are saying we may agree in principle but differ in application, such is foolishness). Here is my position, a position based, I totally believe, on what Jesus taught (Matt. 19: 9): Jack, the innocent mate, may put away Jane. Before Jack puts away Jane (mental resolve, declaration and repudiation, involving civil procedure), no putting away has occurred. Here is your position, Tim: For some reason, Jack does not put away Jane, but Jane puts away Jack. AFTER Jack has been put away by Jane, he then decides to “put away” Jane. Notice, Jack is a put away person and attempts to act after the fact and perform a putting away after a putting away has already taken place, against him, I stress. The way
Jesus used “put away” (apoluo), all put away people are not allowed marriage to
another. Also, there is absolutely no precedent for the action of a putting away
after the putting away (you resent “second” but if it is not a second putting
away, what is it?). You and others are contending that since it is the innocent
mate who has been put away, it really is not a putting away. Thus, Jack should
be able later to really put away. Again, though, “put away” is not used this way
and there is no biblical opportunity Further, in order for Jack to perform a second putting away, he must not only act as the put away person, but he also must act totally without civil procedure. I say this because Jane has already repudiated Jack AND followed civil protocol. Hence, your teaching that divorce may occur totally detached from civil connection. You have in the past also been consistent by also saying that biblical marriage can be totally without civil connection. Tim has in the past taught the following regarding what establishes biblical marriage and putting away: “Thus, Jesus taught that a man and a woman are joined by God in marriage, by public declaration of their intentions, by mutual agreement to be joined in a life-long contract, and by entering a sexual relationship. What role does the court play? None.... What role does the court play in one's sundering of his marriage relationship? None. A man departs from his wife, and that without any involvement of the court at all.....” I have warned Tim that not only is his teaching unbiblical but it eventuates in total chaos. Who is married and who is divorce, who knows, based on Tim’s teaching. Tim is ignoring the basic hermenuetical questions of “what,” “who,” “how,” and “when.” Tim has two people in circumstances that I do not believe within themselves constitute marriage or divorcement (“what”); he has the wrong person (the already put away person); he has confused the “how”; and he has the “when” out of place. Tim wrote, again first quoting me: “Even prior to Jack and Jane experiencing marriage failure, do you believe any germane civil procedure was necessary to their conjugal relationship constituting marriage, biblically considered, as opposed to a simple shack up circumstance?” Don uses loaded, prejudicial language to tilt the question in his favor. Don comments: How so, Tim? Tim does not believe that there is any relevant civil connection in marriage or divorcement and I have simply presented his case in practical terms and application. Tim is faced with the dilemma and quandary of his position. Tim asked me: Is there no marriage apart from a “legal” marriage? Is God’s marriage law negated by societies and cultures that have no “civil procedure” for getting married? Don answers: I have always stipulated regarding marriage and divorce, “relevant civil protocol.” Every culture of which I am aware has some procedure and record relative to marriage and divorcement. I think such is good because it clearly establishes intent. I cannot tell you, Tim and the circle, how many times I have had to deal with a woman in tears because she thought she was married to the man, but after years of simply living with her without openly declaring marriage intent, he informs her that they are not married, just shacking up! Whether Tim wants to admit it or not, his teaching of no civil connection in marriage and divorce is conducive to many heartaches and much confusion. I submit that involved in biblical marriage and divorce there is the matter of pertinent civil involvement (cp. I Pet. 2: 13, Rom. 13: 1-7). Tim’s position of necessity is: “Being legally married is a separate thing from being bound in marriage by God.” I maintain civil protocol is a part of biblical marriage and divorce. In order for Tim to have a put away person, though, being able to later put away, Tim must reject any civil connection. Tim cannot see his inconsistency. For instance, using Tim’s own definition of marriage and divorce, if Jane repudiates Jack, Jack is put away, according to Tim, before any civil law involvement. Just think of all the people who are divorced and do not even know it (a heated argument in which Jane says, “Get out I am through with you” would constitute divorcement). In closing, Tim wrote: Yes, I believe that the innocent spouse (Jack, in this scenario), one faithful to his marriage vows, may put his fornicator-mate away and marry another, per Matthew 19:9. Don, your question implies that you are back to your theory that biblical putting-away is entirely synonymous with civil divorce procedure. Is this true? If so, would you be willing to affirm such in public, oral debate? If so, I would be happy to deny such a position, for I believe it constitutes rank heresy. Let me know if you are interested in debating that precise point. Others are frightened to death of it. Don replies: I have not taught that biblical and civil putting away, if you will, are tantamount or synonymous. In fact, I have challenged those who have so taught. Tim should know this. However, I believe applicable civil procedure is PART OF biblical putting away. Tim, can you produce any teaching that I have done in which I have taught that the two are tantamount? If not, please apologize to this circle. I, again, thank you, Tim, and all for your time and interest. Tim and I have had many Internet exchanges on this very subject, before list audiences. I just wish men such as Mike Willis and Ron Halbrook would fulfill I Peter 3: 15 (“give an answer....”). I am not saying that they must formally debate me (involving much time, money, physical location, buildings, etc.), but I do believe each man is obligated to defend his teaching. While I believe Tim is patently wrong in his teaching, I do sincerely commend his courage. Cordially, ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Martin Good Morning All, Don Martin here, I have a little time and I thought I would send a brief email to the circle, a follow up from last night. There are a number of you in this circle with whom I doctrinally disagree relative to various nuances of the MDR issue. Mike Willis is in this circle and I strongly disagree with Mike's teach regarding multiple causes for divorce. Ron Halbrook is also in the circle but I imagine he is either gone or returning from the Philippines and does not have time to give account for what I believe to be erroneous teaching on MDR pertaining to the innocent put away person being able to later put away and marry another. There are perhaps others in the circle who are still studying some of these matters and attempting to arrive at the truth, void of all extremes. Many, including Tim Haile, have migrated toward the no civil in divorce due to the necessity of consistency. Since they have an already put away person later putting away without any civil law circumstance (the civil has already been activated), they have to figure out what to say and they have concluded that civil law really is not even involved in biblical putting away. Since they embraced no civil in divorce, they have had to also espouse the no civil connection in marriage. In other words, two people can be biblically married in America and divorced without any civil protocol whatsoever (even in shack up situations, there is a civil involvement). The question that they do not seem to be able to answer, an intricate part of their own doctrine, is when and how people become married and divorced without any civil connection. I have for many years taught and debated that involved in biblical marriage and divorce, the converse of marriage, is the matter of mental resolve, appropriate declaration and making known of intent, and conformity to applicable civil procedure. The civil connection in both the act of marriage and divorce makes the intent plain and unquestionable and, furthermore, establishes record of intent. Tim has again accused me of teaching the “race-to-the-court-house” doctrine. Such assignments are simplistic. While I do not hold the race-to-the-court-house doctrine (there are some who do), I could just as well and with accuracy accuse some of teaching the race-to-declare doctrine. In the case of divorce, the first to say, “I divorce and repudiate you” would be the putting away and the one to whom he said it, the put away, then and there, without recourse. The no civil connection doctrine is not only biblically untenable, it is also utterly chaotic and opposed to structured society. Who is married and who is put away, no one could tell. Yet, Tim has taught the following: “Thus, Jesus taught that a man and a woman are joined by God in marriage, by public declaration of their intentions, by mutual agreement to be joined in a life-long contract, and by entering a sexual relationship. What role does the court play? None.... What role does the court play in one’s sundering of his marriage relationship? None. A man departs from his wife, and that without any involvement of the court at all.....” Tim Haile is a man with courage and conviction and I hate to see him waste it in this false doctrine of no civil connection. Yes, there are those who I think have gone too far regarding civil procedure. They contend that the civil is in every respect, degree, and manner and even indistinguishably biblical divorce. As I have explained, I believe the applicable civil is part of the declaration and in the case of divorcement, the repudiation process, but it is not synonymous. I sure would like to see others of you comment, for instance, Mike Willis regarding his five additional reasons for divorce. If a Christian's wife is posing a climate that is not conducive to his Christianity or running up bills that he cannot pay, Mike says the man may divorce his wife. Mike adds, “but he cannot marry another.” Mike is wrong, divorce itself is only for the cause of fornication (Matt. 5: 32; 19: 9). I would love to hear what Mike says about the man who divorces his wife for running up bills and then his wife marries another, as most will. May he then divorce her based on fornication? Tim Haile is manifestly different from Ron Halbrook and Mike Willis, Tim is accountable for his teaching and provides an answer, albeit wrong (I Pet. 3: 15). Cordially, ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Haile Tim Haile to Brian Yeager: In accusing me of playing word games, Brian wrote: “For example, you said to Jeff: ‘Jeff, I assume that you have someone in mind who believes in a ‘second putting away,’ but it can’t be me. A person sins by putting his mate away not for fornication and then divorcing him again, a second time, when fornication is later committed (Matt. 5:32).’ I understand that you are opposed to the “waiting game” by practice, as such. However, do you not believe that a second putting away can occur wherein a marriage has already ended through a first putting away? Haven’t you argued that point even this day? No, Brian. I do not teach that. You do not listen. In fact, this is precisely why I quit corresponding with you before. You are one of those who fabricate positions and assign them to your opponents in order to defeat them in argumentation. Such behavior is dishonorable and wasteful. Brother, I meant what I said! The word “SECOND” (putting away) does not accurately represent my position. A “second” putting-away would be another of the same kind, that is, an unlawful putting-away. I do not defend the right of ANYONE to put his mate away not for fornication! I defend the right of an innocent spouse, one faithful to his marriage vows, to put his fornicator-mate away and marry another. You deliberately misrepresent me when you accuse me of believing in a “second putting-away.” Whether you are capable of grasping the concept or not is your problem. Don’t charge me with the consequence of your failure to understand the principle. Brian continued: “You wrote to Jeff saying: ‘Your position does not allow an innocent spouse to put his mate away for fornication if the fornicator had already “departed” before committing his fornication.’ Assuming that you are using the word “departed” based upon I Corinthians 7:10-11, I see that you are arguing a second putting away, for one has already happened.” Brian, what is wrong with you? You pull this second putting-away out of thin air. What drives you to want to assign such a view to me? I teach the right of a person to do what Jesus allowed in the exception clause of Matthew 19:9, that is, put his mate away for fornication. The rightful party exercises ONE putting-away. It may be subsequent to a previous unlawful putting-away, but by definition, it is not a “second” putting-away. It is not like the unlawful putting-away. Brian wrote: “Answer me this: if Dan divorces his wife Debbie (who fights to keep her marriage alive) for reasons other than fornication and Dan later has a sexual relationship followed by a marriage to another woman, can Debbie put him away for fornication and be free to remarry? If so, how is this a first putting away? Where is the Scripture for a post-divorce divorce?” I will answer this AGAIN. Perhaps I will be heard by my “much speaking.” YES, faithful, innocent Debbie may put her fornicating BOUND husband away and marry another. By the words of your own question this was her first putting-away. Your position requires Debbie to remain bound to her fornicating husband for life. Jesus required no such thing. Like brother Belknap, you asked for Scripture for a post-divorce divorce. Well, Brian, where is the Scripture for a pre-divorce divorce? Where is the Scripture that teaches that the only putting-away that can be seen by God is the FIRST one? Where is the Scripture that defines putting-away as being relevant only when it precedes another putting-away? YOU HAVE NO SUCH SCRIPTURE! This is why you are forced to fabricate that foolish terminology to describe your position. Unbiblical terminology often reflects an unbiblical position. Jesus knew nothing of a “pre” or “post” anything. He knew only of a lawful putting-away and an unlawful putting-away. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife not for fornication? No. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for fornication? Yes. Tim Haile I agree with the words, though you apply different meanings to them, of your final two paragraphs in response to me. I have no problem understanding your position. I fully understand what the bond is, my concern is that you are trying to make the marriage and the bond the same thing, when they truly are separate (i.e. a marriage is over and the bond can still be intact). I have not misstated my case nor misunderstood yours. Our disagreement comes in our different understandings of when one has a spouse to put away and when they no longer have a spouse to put away. Your position is as follows (from what YOU have written): “The physical marriage relationship is sundered by a putting-away (Matt. 19:6)”… “The godless party may have already broken the physical “one-flesh” relationship.” “They are still “husband” and “wife” because they remain bound by God…” “As along as an innocent mate has a “husband” or a “wife,” that innocent mate has the right to put away his husband or wife on the grounds of fornication.” That of course is from your words of 10/9/2003: http://www.biblebanner.com/articles/mdr/whatput.htm Today, you responded to Jeff saying: “Your position does not allow an innocent spouse to put his mate away for fornication if the fornicator had already “departed” before committing his fornication.” Tim, one cannot take action (depart, repudiate, divorce, etc.) to end a marriage that has already ended. When a husband and / or a wife divorces his or her mate, they are no longer married. You agree with that by your statement to me: “Yes, divorce ends the one flesh relationship.” Tim, this makes a couple unmarried (I Corinthians 7:10-11). You have the tendency in your writings, from my observation, to change terms and apply meanings to them by implications that are not valid. For example, you have contended in your writings that Paul still refers to the man as the woman’s husband in the present tense in I Corinthians 7:10-11 and Romans 7:2-3. In truth, she is not married and he is not currently her husband any more than the widow is still married to her dead husband (Romans 7:2; 3). Yes, as I stated earlier, they are bound to each other; but they are not married to one another. Thus, a putting away of one’s mate to end the marriage cannot occur. I wrote what I wrote earlier, and now, because your position contends that: “… two people remain “husband” and “wife” even after one has departed from the other” (http://www.biblebanner.com/articles/mdr/whatput.htm). As I stated earlier: “Paul wrote: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart [to leave a husband or a wife; of divorce – Thayer; page 674], let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife” (I Corinthians 7:10-11). Mary and Joe are just as unmarried as a widow or someone who has never before been married. How do we know this? Paul used the word unmarried that is the same in the KJV and the Greek in I Corinthians 7:8: “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.” Brotherly, Brian A. Yeager ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Martin Don Martin here, I am not sure as to what has happened to Tim Haile. Tim has not taken the vow of silence along with Mike Willis and Ron Halbrook in the past. Perhaps something has come up that has taken Tim away from answering my last email to him on the circle. At any rate, I shall again insert it below and if Tim is gone, I shall not address him again in this forum. However, if there are others who might like to ask a question of me, please do so. I have nothing to hide, I do not hide behind a group, and I am accountable for my teaching. Here again is my last email to Tim: Good Morning All, Don Martin here, I have a little time and I thought I would send a brief email to the circle, a follow up from last night. There are a number of you in this circle with whom I doctrinally disagree relative to various nuances of the MDR issue. Mike Willis is in this circle and I strongly disagree with Mike’s teach regarding multiple causes for divorce. Ron Halbrook is also in the circle but I imagine he is either gone or returning from the Philippines and does not have time to give account for what I believe to be erroneous teaching on MDR pertaining to the innocent put away person being able to later put away and marry another. There are perhaps others in the circle who are still studying some of these matters and attempting to arrive at the truth, void of all extremes. Many, including Tim Haile, have migrated toward the no civil in divorce due to the necessity of consistency. Since they have an already put away person later putting away without any civil law circumstance (the civil has already been activated), they have to figure out what to say and they have concluded that civil law really is not even involved in biblical putting away. Since they embraced no civil in divorce, they have had to also espouse the no civil connection in marriage. In other words, two people can be biblically married in America and divorced without any civil protocol whatsoever (even in shack up situations, there is a civil involvement). The question that they do not seem to be able to answer, an intricate part of their own doctrine, is when and how people become married and divorced without any civil connection. I have for many years taught and debated that involved in biblical marriage and divorce, the converse of marriage, is the matter of mental resolve, appropriate declaration and making known of intent, and conformity to applicable civil procedure. The civil connection in both the act of marriage and divorce makes the intent plain and unquestionable and, furthermore, establishes record of intent. Tim has again accused me of teaching the “race-to-the-court-house” doctrine. Such assignments are simplistic. While I do not hold the race-to-the-court-house doctrine (there are some who do), I could just as well and with accuracy accuse some of teaching the race-to-declare doctrine. In the case of divorce, the first to say, “I divorce and repudiate you” would be the putting away and the one to whom he said it, the put away, then and there, without recourse. The no civil connection doctrine is not only biblically untenable, it is also utterly chaotic and opposed to structured society. Who is married and who is put away, no one could tell. Yet, Tim has taught the following: “Thus, Jesus taught that a man and a woman are joined by God in marriage, by public declaration of their intentions, by mutual agreement to be joined in a life-long contract, and by entering a sexual relationship. What role does the court play? None.... What role does the court play in one’s sundering of his marriage relationship? None. A man departs from his wife, and that without any involvement of the court at all.....” Tim Haile is a man with courage and conviction and I hate to see him waste it in this false doctrine of no civil connection. Yes, there are those who I think have gone too far regarding civil procedure. They contend that the civil is in every respect, degree, and manner and even indistinguishably biblical divorce. As I have explained, I believe the applicable civil is part of the declaration and in the case of divorcement, the repudiation process, but it is not synonymous. I sure would like to see others of you comment, for instance, Mike Willis regarding his five additional reasons for divorce. If a Christian’s wife is posing a climate that is not conducive to his Christianity or running up bills that he cannot pay, Mike says the man may divorce his wife. Mike adds, “but he cannot marry another.” Mike is wrong, divorce itself is only for the cause of fornication (Matt. 5: 32; 19: 9). I would love to hear what Mike says about the man who divorces his wife for running up bills and then his wife marries another, as most will. May he then divorce her based on fornication? Tim Haile is manifestly different from Ron Halbrook and Mike Willis, Tim is accountable for his teaching and provides an answer, albeit wrong (I Pet. 3: 15). Cordially, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Brian Yeager Dear Tim: I appreciate your responding to my email. I will assume that your passion to defend your position is shown in your writings and I will understand your comments towards me in that light. I hope you will do the same with my responses. Being cordial in discussion is important as I would not want a comment by you or myself to change the good that could come from our discussion. My goal is not to win, make you look bad, or anything of the sort. My goal is to study the word of God, change if I am wrong, and help you if you are wrong. Thus far I have seen no biblical evidence to support your position. Thus, I am convinced that I am on the side of truth. You said that I fabricated a position and assigned it to you. I did not fabricate anything and your answer shows that. I don’t need a straw man to expose someone who is clearly in error. You expose yourself. Since you must have missed what your words have revealed, let me illustrate it to you: 1. Notice the following illustration that you answered to help you see your erring conclusion (note the statements in parenthesis): “Dan divorces his wife Debbie (who fights to keep her marriage alive) for reasons other than fornication (THIS IS THE FIRST “PUTTING AWAY” – B.A.Y.) and Dan later has a sexual relationship followed by a marriage to another woman, can Debbie put him away for fornication and be free to remarry (THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND PUTTING AWAY IF TIM SAYS YES – B.A.Y.)?” 2. Tim answers the scenario by saying: “YES (emphasis B.A.Y.), faithful, innocent Debbie may put her fornicating BOUND husband away and marry another.” Tim, this is you affirming a SECOND PUTTING AWAY. The illustration above proves such. Whether lawful or not there has already been a putting away before your doctrine would allow Debbie to put away her ex-husband (1+1=2). Tim, you say that I fabricate a position, but it is you my brother who is doing the dishonest work here. It is you who are redefining terms to make them say what you what them to say. For example you say: “A “second” putting-away would be another of the same kind, that is, an unlawful putting-away.” You have to be kidding here, right? One divorce and then divorce number two. That would be a first and a second. There is no such thing in the New Testament. There is not idea of an unlawful putting away followed by a lawful putting away. Where’s the Scripture for that Tim? Just think, you are arguing that the husband has a putting away card and the wife has a putting away card. One is lawful and the other is not. You hold onto your card until the other uses his or hers and then finds another person to shack up with. Instead of the “race to the courthouse” position you are declaring a “who can remain celibate the longest?” position. Some call that the “waiting game”. I know that you reject that as your position. However, that is where your logic naturally leads! You said to me: “Your position requires Debbie to remain bound to her fornicating husband for life…” No, the Lord’s position says that, not mine (I Corinthians 7:10-11). Your answer to my request for Scripture is the following: “Like brother Belknap, you asked for Scripture for a post-divorce divorce. Well, Brian, where is the Scripture for a pre-divorce divorce?” This is funny. I believe that there can only be one putting away. If that putting away is for reasons other than fornication then both are to remain unmarried or reconciled (I Corinthians 7:10-11). Whatever occurs post that putting away does not authorize a subsequent putting away. As I have stated many times over, the marriage is over. The man and the woman are now UNMARRIED just as one who has never been married before, or a widow (I Corinthians 7:8; 10-11). The only difference is that they are not free to remarry as they are bound to one another (I Corinthians 7:39). Why are you trying to find a loophole here? Is there someone you know that you are trying to justify? Can’t you accept that there are some who “…be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”? Tim, you then accuse me of making up terms. Brother, those terms describe your position which is not a biblical position. The only terms I can find in the word of God to describe your position are terms like false, addition, doctrines of men, err, etc. It is you who are taking a position that a man or a woman who is no longer married can put away a mate that they are no longer married to. You admitted it through you answer to my question. NO MORE WIGGLE ROOM and no more holes. You don’t like the terms “second putting away” to describe your position, but that is what your position is! I also enjoyed your wording when you said: “YES, faithful, innocent Debbie may put her fornicating BOUND husband away and marry another.” Debbie has a husband only in the past tense, as the widow has a husband in the past tense (Romans 7:2-3). Debbie is no longer married in the illustration I used to question your position (I Corinthians 7:8; 10-11). Once again, you are using the word “BOUND” in attempts to confuse what a marriage is. You say in one email that the bond and the marriage are two different things, but then you try to confuse the two in your emails and articles earlier and later to cause confusion. The smoke will blow over and people will see your position. Those reading this exchange cannot miss it. You conclude by asking about the lawful and unlawful putting away that can occur. Tim, you know that most of us involved in these discussions concur that the innocent mate has the right to put away (divorce) the guilty and remarry (Matthew 5:32-33; 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18). The disagreement, as illustrated in your answer to my question, is about a second putting away or a post-divorce putting away. You correctly said that those terms are not biblical. The reason – the POSITION IS NOT BIBLICAL. Repent my brother, before it is everlastingly too late (Luke 13:3; 5). For those observing this discussion, I hope there are some others that would interject if they believe they can clarify the truth whatsoever your perspective may be. Studying an issue and exposing error is never a bad thing! Truth has nothing to hide from (Acts 5:34-39). Brotherly, Brian A. Yeager ----- Original Message ----- From:
Don Martin Don Martin to the email circle: I see that Tim has not left but has replied to Brian Yeager and Brian has now replied to Tim. I suppose Tim does not have to respond to my comments, as too many going at the same time can be confusing and even unfair to Tim. Tim, in his last response to me in this circle, charged me with teaching that biblical and civil divorcement are inseparably identical (he said I taught they are “synonymous”). I asked him to produce such teaching on my part and if he could not (he cannot), to apologize in this circle in which he said it. In fact, I can produce many, many statements in which I address this very nuance of the MDR issue and I challenge the view that the civil and biblical are synonymous. In fact, I had an exchange on a list (I believe Tim was on that list) with Terence Sheridan in view of his position that biblical and civil are synonymous, in the exchange he had with Harry Osborne. At any rate, while we wait on an apology from Tim, I thought I would share a short post that I just made to another list regarding this same issue being discussed in that forum (I am not one of the major players this time). Before I do, let me anticipate Tim’s response. “Don Martin has falsely accused me....” Tim wants to teach that divorce can occur AFTER it has already taken place and then he yells “you falsely accused me” when he is charged with advocating a second divorce. Tim and some others are engaging in equivocation in the extreme. Jesus recognized (not approved) the first putting away and called it a putting away, even though it was not for fornication (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). Tim continues to ignore and reject this biblical fact. Here is what I just submitted to an Internet list (I have changed the names of the preachers): Don Martin to the list: I am up to my hair line (it has receded) in work, but I thought I would briefly contribute to the discussion in which John Doe and William Smith are engaged. John has
contended for civil connection in both marriage and divorce and it
appears William is advocating a total detachment of the applicable civil, in
regards to what he thinks constitutes biblical marriage and divorce. I have always said that one can use the court system to establish the putting away of a spouse, both for proper and improper reasons. This does not mean that the court system is required by Matthew 19; far from it. Don comments: It appears that William has jumped on the band wagon of those advocating two people can be married and divorced without ever seeing a count house. Notwithstanding, William continues to vacillate, in my judgment. I agree that there are some technicalities, but to advocate the total absence of germane civil procedure is not only unbiblical, but it is also utter chaos, especially in a society such as America where shacking up is becoming the norm and walking away is common. I never thought I would live to see the day where preachers in the church would be promoting a no civil connection in marriage and divorce as is now happening. It is strange about William, he binds a head covering on women in worship when the covering was never bound on all women and then he omits pertinent civil law connection in marriage and divorce. Some such as William have moved to distinguishing the biblical and civil to the point that as far as the biblical is concerned, there is no civil. Why not see it as the civil provision and protocol is simply part of the declaration and intent process, both inherit in biblical marriage and divorcement? The courts then become part of the declaration of the purpose of two people living together for life in the marital state. To the converse, the courts become part of the innocent mate’s declaration and repudiation of the guilty mate, divorcement. I think that there is a technical difference between the biblical and civil, but I do not believe the two can be so separated as to disconnect the civil and alone have the biblical. William is wrong in his distinction and separation. All we need for further moral decay is for preachers to start running around teaching no civil connection. This will most certainly encourage the already American phenomenon of shacking up.
Cordially, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Tim Haile Tim Haile to Don Martin, What is your problem? I can’t spend every hour of every day with this email circle. On top of my normal work, I spent all day yesterday until 9:30 working on my house. I had steel gas lines to run under the house and through various walls. For every cut and thread that I had to make, I had to run down to my friend’s shop and use his pipe threader, which slowed the process down, but saves me thousands of dollars. Did I need to get your permission before doing this work? Can you not wait one day for a response? This is absurd. You have now written two subsequent posts second-guessing my motives merely because of a day’s delay (in which I did answer brother Yeager, whose letter preceded yours in order). I will answer you when I get good and ready. Until then, find something better to do with your time than to sit around dreaming up possible reasons why have not answered you as quickly as you think I should have. Tim Haile ----- Original Message ----- From:
Tim Haile Tim Haile to Brian Yeager: I now see why you continue to charge me with believing in a “second putting away.” You can’t see the difference between 2 puttings-away (one that is unlawful and a different one that is lawful) and a 2nd putting away. I can’t help you brother. Tim ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Yeager Tim: I am assuming that you meant to send your email to everyone based upon how you addressed it. Thus, I am responding publicly after I have forwarded your email on to everyone else. I have enjoyed this discussion and I am glad that time has been permitted to do so. I hope you are not stepping out of the discussion now. You wrote: “I now see why you continue to charge me with believing in a “second putting away.” You can’t see the difference between 2 puttings-away (one that is unlawful and a different one that is lawful) and a 2nd putting away. I can’t help you brother.” No Tim, I cannot see a difference. Where in the Scriptures is there a distinction? Show me through the word of God how there is a distinction and I will gladly change my position. When Jesus says “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication…” (Matthew 19:9) He acknowledges that there is, and can be a putting away that is unlawful. When Paul says that the husband and the wife are no longer married in I Corinthians 7:10-11, his application is to the ending of a marriage for reasons other than fornication! They are to remain unmarried or be reconciled. Regardless of who did the putting away, the marriage is over. It is an unlawful putting away as it does not fulfill the exception clause of Matthew 5:32-33 and Matthew 19:9 (fornication being the cause of the putting away). Tim, there is no other action that can be taken to end that which has been ended – the marriage. As I have repeatedly shown and you have not begun to answer, the marriage is over and they are no longer husband and wife regardless of the cause of the putting away. They must remain unmarried or reconcile! Jesus says “…whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32). Jesus notices the unmarried woman as divorced. Thus, any subsequent putting away would be a second putting away (a second divorce). There cannot be a second putting away whether lawful or not because the Scriptures do not authorize it. You did not even try to answer my arguments. You, I, and everyone else can see that you can’t. You affirmed a second putting away when you answered the following scenario in the affirmative: “Dan divorces his wife Debbie (who fights to keep her marriage alive) for reasons other than fornication (THIS IS THE FIRST “PUTTING AWAY” – B.A.Y.) and Dan later has a sexual relationship followed by a marriage to another woman, can Debbie put him away for fornication and be free to remarry (THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND PUTTING AWAY IF TIM SAYS YES – B.A.Y.)?” If you are signing off I will accept that. Personally, I would not sign off at this point if I were you because your position has been clearly exposed and you have not defended your conclusions. If you are not signing off, I ask that you answer my previous email along with this one. Brotherly, Brian A. Yeager ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Martin Don Martin to the circle, I have been contacted with the question, “Where did Tim Haile go and why has he not replied?” I myself wondered what had happened to Tim. I have had too many exchanges to count involving up to thirty concurrent disputants and I have tried to reply to all within a short time. There was about a whole day that went by without hearing from Tim. Here is one thing that I said: “I am not sure as to what has happened to Tim Haile. Tim has not taken the vow of silence along with Mike Willis and Ron Halbrook in the past. Perhaps something has come up that has taken Tim away from answering my last email to him on the circle.” I was actually providing possible reason and defending Tim’s failure to promptly reply. Tim, I hope you have all under control around your house. If it is as cold there as here, I would not want to be outside doing any work. It appears, though, that Tim did not so view what I said. Tim wrote a little while ago (to the circle): “What is your problem? I can’t spend every hour of every day with this email circle. On top of my normal work, I spent all day yesterday until 9:30 working on my house. I had steel gas lines to run under the house and through various walls. For every cut and thread that I had to make, I had to run down to my friend’s shop and use his pipe threader, which slowed the process down, but saves me thousands of dollars. Did I need to get your permission before doing this work? Can you not wait one day for a response? This is absurd. You have now written two subsequent posts second-guessing my motives merely because of a day’s delay (in which I did answer brother Yeager, whose letter preceded yours in order). I will answer you when I get good and ready. Until then, find something better to do with your time than to sit around dreaming up possible reasons why have not answered you as quickly as you think I should have.” Don closes: I am sorry Tim took such offence at my suggestions that Tim had not left, but was busy. I, too, am very busy, as well as Brian Yeager and Jeff Belknap. Tim is not the same Tim that I used to know. Tim used to be very level headed and he would calmly approach any matter, thinking carefully before he spoke. I am truly sorry that Tim Haile has changed! When tempers start to flare, I usually remove myself from an exchange. Again, though, how about some of you, why not ask a question or make a point and give Tim a break? Mike Willis, why want you make a sound? (I imagine Ron is busy in the Philippines, again.) There are others of you in this circle who are highly intelligent and very capable, but you do not agree with what I am teaching, why not speak up? Cordially, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Tim Haile Tim Haile to Don Martin, Don, your latest post charges me with a temper flare. It was not a temper flare. It was a deliberate expression of absolute disgust and disdain for your tactics and treatment of me. Your tactics are quite aggravating. You seem to think that you have the right to dictate the amount of time that your opponent has to respond to one of your posts. If your opponent waits longer than your arbitrarily established time, you think you have the right to attribute to him reasons for not responding. You have no such right. You asked me: “Do you believe Jack (the innocent mate) may put away Jane totally detached from any applicable civil connection, this action taking place AFTER Jane has put away (repudiation and civil procedure) Jack?” I responded: “Yes, I believe that the innocent spouse (Jack, in this scenario), one faithful to his marriage vows, may put his fornicator-mate away and marry another, per Matthew 19:9.” Don followed: “Don comments: “Tim, you are not as explicit and overt as you used to be in providing such an answer; nonetheless, you did answer the question, “yes.” You and I both believe the innocent mate may put away and marry another, but your circumstances and added teaching is what makes us miles apart in application. (Ron Halbrook and others are saying we may agree in principle but differ in application, such is foolishness).” Don, you first accused me of not being explicit. You then acknowledge that I answered the question “yes.” Tell me Don, how much more explicit can one be than to answer a question “yes?” Don, you are the one who has “added teaching.” I teach that an innocent spouse, one faithful to his marriage vows, may put away his fornicator-mate and marry another. You ADD to the Lord’s teaching when you add your provisos to what Jesus taught. Namely, that such a putting-away can only be done when civil procedure is involved, and when the innocent spouse puts the fornicator away BEFORE the fornicator puts him away. Jesus said nothing about any of that. Your position adds to the word of God. Don wrote: “The way Jesus used “put away” (apoluo), all put away people are not allowed marriage to another. Also, there is absolutely no precedent for the action of a putting away after the putting away (you resent “second” but if it is not a second putting away, what is it?). You and others are contending that since it is the innocent mate who has been put away, it really is not a putting away. Thus, Jack should be able later to really put away. Again, though, “put away” is not used this way and there is no biblical opportunity to arrive at such a concept. Such, my friend, is totally man’s reasoning in conflict with what is taught.” Don, it is merely your arbitrary assertion, your ipse dixit that no put-away person may put away. J.H. Thayer defines apoluo as the repudiation of one’s mate. Jesus did not emphasize the TIMING of divorce. He emphasized the CAUSE of divorce. Two people may simultaneously reject and repudiate each other. Both puttings-away are real. The question is not whether or not two people may divorce each other, the question is whether or not either one of them had the God-given right to repudiate his mate. In the absence of fornication, both are wrong, and neither one of them may marry another. Don, you again misrepresent me by accusing me of believing that an unlawful putting-away is not a real putting-away. I DO NOT TEACH SUCH! I teach that every divorce is real! Every putting-away is real! Every time one repudiates his mate it is real! It is real whether it is approved or unapproved. It is real whether it is lawful or unlawful. I do not believe that Jesus was using “accommodative” language in Matthew 19:6, 9. Don, had I been vague regarding my position on this, or had I sparsely stated it, I would dismiss this as an honest misunderstanding on your part. However, it is difficult for me to believe that you have not read my plain statements regarding the reality of all divorces, and this disturbs me. I will allow you this additional opportunity to accept my word that I do believe that all divorces are real. Deliberate misrepresentation is sinful. As for this matter of “real” divorce, Don, it is actually your position that renders some marriages and divorces UNREAL. According to your position, a putting-away is not real if it is done “detached” from a courthouse. You do not believe that all divorces are real. I believe that all divorces are real. Don continued: “Further, in order for Jack to perform a second putting away, he must not only act as the put away person, but he also must act totally without civil procedure. I say this because Jane has already repudiated Jack AND followed civil protocol. Hence, your teaching that divorce may occur totally detached from civil connection. You have in the past also been consistent by also saying that biblical marriage can be totally without civil connection.” “Tim has in the past taught the following regarding what establishes biblical marriage and putting away: “Thus, Jesus taught that a man and a woman are joined by God in marriage, by public declaration of their intentions, by mutual agreement to be joined in a life-long contract, and by entering a sexual relationship. “What role does the court play? None.... “What role does the court play in one’s sundering of his marriage relationship? None. A man departs from his wife, and that without any involvement of the court at all.....” Don, the Lord is the one who taught that divorce may occur totally detached from civil connection. After quoting from Deuteronomy 24, Jesus said, “But I say unto you…” I teach what he taught. Have you considered the implications of your criticisms of me? You chide me for teaching that a man can depart from his wife “without any involvement of the court at all.” Though you will later attempt to deny it, your concept of divorce revolves around the court house. Your position is that a marriage or divorce can take place only when there is a “civil connection.” You have no Scripture for such an assertion whatsoever. Civil compliance is separate from, and in addition to the universal divine requirements for marriage in divorce. Don wrote: “I have warned Tim that not only is his teaching unbiblical but it eventuates in total chaos. Who is married and who is divorce, who knows, based on Tim’s teaching. Tim is ignoring the basic hermenuetical questions of “what,” “who,” “how,” and “when.” Tim has two people in circumstances that I do not believe within themselves constitute marriage or divorcement (“what”); he has the wrong person (the already put away person); he has confused the “how”; and he has the “when” out of place.” Don claims that my teaching leads to total chaos. I guess Don thinks that present US divorce laws have resulted in a high degree of marital peace and order in our country! Have you checked the divorce rates lately? Is your “civil connection” being used by God to also establish the gay marriages presently being conducted? Does God use civil courts to bind homosexuals in marriage? What about would-be adulterers? Does He use civil procedure to bind them in marriage? If you are going to continue making this ludicrous argument that no marriage or divorce is real unless it is done through the court, then at least qualify the argument so that it doesn’t have godless US courts forcing God to bind adulterers and homosexuals in a marriage contract! Don accuses me of ignoring a basic interpretive principle. There is another hermeneutical principle that Don ignores: the one that says “speak as the oracles of God!” Don wrote: “I have not taught that biblical and civil putting away, if you will, are tantamount or synonymous. In fact, I have challenged those who have so taught. Tim should know this. However, I believe applicable civil procedure is PART OF biblical putting away. Tim, can you produce any teaching that I have done in which I have taught that the two are tantamount? If not, please apologize to this circle.” Don, did you have a little “temper” flare in this response? I asked you a question – I did not charge you with a position. I owe you no apology. Frankly, your call for an apology is extremely hypocritical. You have repeatedly falsely charged me on a number of points. I have ignored these many times, hoping that either I would develop the ability to make the points clearer, or that you would eventually understand what I was saying. This is the nature of controversy. I will apologize if it can be demonstrated that I have misrepresented your position. For now, I will thank you for answering my question. I understand your position to be that no marriage or divorce can take place “detached” form the courthouse, that there must be a “civil connection,” that there must be compliance with “relevant civil protocol,” and that “applicable civil procedure is PART OF biblical putting away.” I disagree with Don. No Scripture can be produced that teaches that God binds no one in marriage, or looses no one from a marriage bond apart from “civil protocol.” Marriage is not a civil institution: it is a divine institution, and all divine institutions are regulated by God. Civil compliance is just that: civil compliance! Human divorce laws are fluid. God’s law has been the same from the beginning of the creation. Tim Haile I, again, thank you, Tim, and all for your time and interest. Tim and I have had many Internet exchanges on this very subject, before list audiences. I just wish men such as Mike Willis and Ron Halbrook would fulfill I Peter 3: 15 (“give an answer....”). I am not saying that they must formally debate me (involving much time, money, physical location, buildings, etc.), but I do believe each man is obligated to defend his teaching. While I believe Tim is patently wrong in his teaching, I do sincerely commend his courage. Cordially, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Don Martin Hello Email Circle, I plan on ending my participation with this brief email. I am sorry more did not have the courage of their convictions regarding their belief of an innocent put away person being able to later put away and marry another to stand up and be accountable. I would hate to believe something and then for what ever reason, be diffident to defend it. Mike Willis regarding his five extra reasons for divorce has also remained silent. I, frankly, do not have any respect for such silence. I should think that those of you who work with Mike as staff writers are ashamed of him. Tim has done what I predicted, accused me of misrepresenting him; hence, it is permissible for him to misrepresent me. I teach that applicable civil law is PART of the marriage and putting away process, involved in the declaration of intent and the repudiation. Therefore, when Tim says that I teach that the biblical and civil are synonymous, he is wrong. If I taught such, I would say so and accept the consequences (the race-to-the-court-house). Tim had about 48 hours to produce proof of me teaching such and he failed. Yet, he refuses to apologize. I have accused Tim of teaching no germane civil connection in both biblical marriage and divorce and I produced proof from Tim’s writings. Tim absolutely believes that two people can be biblically married or divorced without any civil involvement. Since Tim has a putting away after the putting away, Tim has a second putting away, all the equivocation and gymnastics aside. Tim has the innocent put away being able to not only later put away but also marry another. The innocent can be put away and even the subsequent marriage of the other mate does not alter the fact that she commits adultery when she later marries, according to Jesus (see Matthew 19: 9.) Having a linguist background, I have asked Greek and English grammarians how Jesus would have had to word his statement in Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9 to absolutely forbid and preclude divorce for any cause other than fornication and remove even the circumstance of the waiting game practices and the answer has been, “He would have had to word it just as he did.” Notwithstanding, Tim and others are maintaining the possibility of a later putting away after the put away and even marriage to another! Tim has altered the “who,” the “how” and the “when” of Jesus’ statements. Tim is teaching false doctrine and also providing encouragement for adultery. Tim’s teaching should be well received in our adulterous society and should provide rationalization for many who are unscripturally married. This doctrine is begun and maintained by the emotional appeal of, “Just because the terribly mean adulterous mate won the race to the court house, you are condemning the loving, faithful Christian to a life of celibacy!” This is not the issue. Such is tantamount to institutionalism promoters arguing, “Those anties believe an orphan on the steps of the church building must be allowed to stare to death!” I have been accused by some who believe as does Tim of denying Jesus’ teaching that the innocent has the right to put away and marry another. Such is slanderous and they know it. I believe Jesus’ teaching, teach it, and I defend it. However, if the innocent is going to be able to later marry another, they must put away their adulterous mate when the time is present to so do and not passively sit back and allow the mate to divorce them and then decide LATER they have changed their mind! Tim has contended with me in several Internet exchanges that the innocent may at any time and in any circumstances put away. Such totally disregards Jesus’ teaching and revives the old waiting game practices that we fought during the sixties and seventies. I am sorry that Tim and others are accepting error. Tim is now very settled into his new teaching. Such teaching and teachers must be exposed. Thank you for your time and interest. Cordially, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Morris Bowers Well, I guess this about shuts down the debate on “mental divorce” for the time being. Nothing happened. Nothing changed. No one changed their teaching on the matter. I just wonder how many couples have fallen into this category of “mental” divorce? Is it worth all of the time and effort being put into this debate? I know that the TRUTH must be defended; but, when do you dust off your sandals and go forward to the lost of this world? Just thinking out loud. Love you all, Morris Bowers ----- Original Message ----- From: J Belknap Morris, You give up way too soon! Be patient my friend, Tim may have to do some things before he answers my e-mail from Dec. 5th: Dear brother Tim, I am thankful that we agree on some things. Let’s discuss our major difference. You wrote: “Two people vowed before the divine witness (Mal. 2:14) in forming the marriage, and two people have the ability to disavow each other.” The definition of “assertion” is “a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary).” http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assertion However, we are commanded to “prove” what we teach (I Thessalonians 5:21; I Peter 4:11; cf. Isaiah 8:20; I John 4:1, 5-6). Where is the scripture for this teaching? Tim asserts that because both parties vow in forming a marriage, that the inverse of that truth is also necessarily true. (He claims that for an unapproved divorce to be consequential to both parties, both parties must “disavow.”) This is clearly human reason, for although the New Testament portrays marriage as taking place between two willing partners, it undeniably portrays wrongful divorce (unapproved sundering, Matthew 19:6/unmarry-ing, I Cor. 7:11) as occurring by one mate dealing “treacherously” against the other (Malachi 2:14, 16; Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; I Corinthians 7:10-11; et al). Yet we clearly see brother Haile’s inconsistency when he claims that there is something left for a person to “put away” after they have been divorced. However, this is nowhere authorized in THE BOOK. Scripture teaches that only God binds, and since it nowhere indicates that man has the power to loose that bond, the inverse is necessarily true: that God alone has the power to loose what He bound. And scripture only portrays loosing as being done when one puts away his “one flesh” mate for the cause of fornication. Tim, where is the scripture that teaches that an “unmarried” (I Corinthians 7:11) person who “is divorced” (Matthew 5:32b) / “put away” (Matthew 19:9b) may subsequently “‘disavow’ for fornication” and marry another? Your assertions are not the word of God. You can search the scriptures till the second coming of Christ for your teaching, but you will look in vain. Marriage commences the life of a physical union. It signifies the birth of the “one flesh” relationship that was formed by two individuals (Matthew 19:5-6). Divorce ends the life of the “one flesh” relationship (signifying its death for both partners) – regardless of whether one or both agreed to it. A scenario in point: If Dan and Debbie conceived a child together, and Debbie chose to sinfully abort the baby (signifying its physical death) against Dan’s wishes, the baby would still be dead. Though the baby’s soul would live on, innocent Dan, who wished to save the baby’s physical life, would have no control over it once all was said and done. God alone is in charge of the soul, just as He alone is in charge of the bond, once a marriage dies due to divorce. Once the “one flesh” relationship is broken by one or both, it is terminated. Innocent or guilty, neither can “put away” a mate who is already “away,” nor can either party “depart from” the other who is already long gone. The post-divorce “putting away” theory is absolutely unbiblical. Moreover, the reference of “husband” and/or “wife” after the dissolution of the marriage does not in any way authorize a post-divorce (second) “putting away.” What proves too much proves NOTHING! This same reference is also used after DEATH: Acts 5:9 says that Ananias was dead when Peter stated, “the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door” (emp. jhb). Matthew 22:24-30; Romans 7:3 and I Corinthians 7:39 clearly teach that, upon the death of one spouse, the marriage is dissolved. Yet, in such cases, the Bible uses the terms, “husband” and “wife” in reference to both the partner who died and the remaining spouse. Similarly, in John 4:15-18, although the Lord asked the woman to summon her “husband,” Jesus and the woman later agreed that the man she was with was not really her husband. Moreover, in John 4:18 the Lord said to this woman, “For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband.” Cf. II Sam. 12:15, “And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.” Cp. w. II Sam. 11:26; 12:9-10 Cf. Mt. 22:24-25, “Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.”
Brotherly, ----- Original Message ----- From: J Belknap Dear brothers Morris, Tim and All, While we are waiting for Tim to try and find a Biblical answer (i.e. book, chapter and verse) for his assertion: “Two people vowed before the divine witness (Mal. 2:14) in forming the marriage, and two people have the ability to disavow each other.” I thought it would be good to show how Tim’s logic (above) will lead to what even he defines as “the waiting game.” Tim also states: “A ‘second’ putting-away would be another of the same kind, that is, an unlawful putting-away.” and “The rightful party exercises ONE putting-away. It may be subsequent to a previous unlawful putting-away, but by definition, it is not a ‘second’ putting-away. It is not like the unlawful putting-away.” Do you see here, how Tim’s position will necessarily lead to the waiting game? What if Debbie unlawfully puts away Dan, then Dan fornicates (Matthew 5:32), and Debbie hence “puts away” Dan for lawful cause? By Tim’s reasoning, Debbie has only exercised one putting away (for the two were of a different “kind”). If each party in marriage has the “right” to “exercise” ONE putting away for lawful cause, then Debbie has just exercised this “right,” as she was still bound to her “husband,” Dan when she exercised it. Now, I know that Tim does not believe this, because he has added the arbitrary condition that the one who puts away for lawful cause must have been “faithful to his marriage vows.” However, this condition of “faithful to his marriage vows” is nowhere found in scripture. This is a subjective requirement, and the vows “forsaking all others” and “until death do us part” are not the only vows that people may be unfaithful to. Is the husband who “runs up bills with no intention of paying them,” or who refuses to work to support his family “faithful to his marriage vows?” Is the wife who is lazy or who will not obey her husband “faithful to her marriage vows?” Obviously not! Would their unfaithfulness to those vows preclude them from putting away a spouse for the cause of fornication? Or is it only the two vows that brother Haile specifies that are binding? I am not advocating that a mate who defrauds his spouse may divorce them for stumbling when it was they, themselves who put the stone of stumbling in their mate’s path (Matthew 5:32a; I Corinthians 7:5). However, most people (who are not guilty of defrauding their mates) have sinned by breaking other vows such as to “love and honor” (and “obey” for wives) from time to time, and most neglect some marital responsibilities at one point or another. This does not negate their ability to put away their one-flesh mate for the cause of fornication. This illustration shows just how inconsistent such arbitrary requirements are and that they are of man and not God. Additionally, does anyone really believe that there is even one person who is perfectly “innocent” (of breaking any of their vows) in a marriage that eventually ends because of fornication? How innocent must one be, and of what must they be innocent? Can they ever have sinned against their mate? What broken vows preclude them from the “right” to “put away” for lawful cause? Where do we draw the line? I am not trying to assign positions here. Just pointing out the logical and consistent conclusion to Tim’s reasoning. Secondly, for Tim to speak of two different “kinds” of divorces, makes manifest where he is obviously miles apart in his teaching from that of brother Frost. In Marriage And Bond brother Frost wrote: “Let us understand that when God uses the word ‘divorce,’ He means divorce, and when uses it again it still means divorce ... that is, until someone can find in His revelation where He speaks of ‘real divorce’ and of ‘legal divorce,’ or even ‘unreal divorce.’ Of course, the language cannot be found, and the terminology needs to be dropped and the concept it expresses needs to be abandoned. Where there is a divorce, we do not have to determine whether it is a real divorce or an unreal (whether called civil, legal, or whatever) divorce. It is a divorce. That is what God calls it, whether it was with or without His sanction.” Hence, after a divorce (approved or not) there is NOT a marriage partner to “put away.” Tim’s doctrine is a pipe dream! The entire theory is a house of cards. Assertions and arbitrary rules do not equal divine Authority (II John 9-11). Brotherly, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: J Belknap Dear brothers Morris, Tim and All, While we continue to wait for Tim to try and find a Biblical answer (i.e. book, chapter and verse) for his assertion: “Two people vowed before the divine witness (Mal. 2:14) in forming the marriage, and two people have the ability to disavow each other.” And another passage for his unbelievable assertion: “The rightful party exercises ONE putting-away. It may be subsequent to a previous unlawful putting-away, but by definition, it is not a ‘second’ putting-away. It is not like the unlawful putting-away.” I thought it would be good for us to consider the following article. Brotherly, When is Putting Away Accomplished? By Jeff Belknap When we search the scriptures, is putting away revealed in the Bible as something that is achieved before the marriage began, during its existence, or after it ended? Moreover, let us ask the question of whether “Biblical putting away” is ever expressed in scripture as something that is accomplished after the “one flesh” became “twain” (Matthew 19:5-6) and “the married” (I Corinthians 7:10) became the “unmarried” (I Corinthians 7:11)? Please read each verse below and consider whether the putting away transpired before the marriage began, during its existence, or after it ended: Leviticus 21:7, “They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Deuteronomy 22:19, “And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Deuteronomy 24:1-3, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Ezra 10:3, “Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Ezra 10:19, “And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Jeremiah 3:8, “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Malachi 2:16, “For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Matthew 1:18-19, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily” (espoused/married; cf. II Corinthians 11:2; Romans 7:4). BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Matthew 5:31-32, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Matthew 19:3, “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Matthew 19:7-8, “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Matthew 19:9, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Mark 10:2, “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Mark 10:4, “And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? Mark 10:11-12, “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? 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.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? I Corinthians 7:10-13, “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? I Corinthians 7:15, “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.” BEFORE, DURING or AFTER? We do not need any additional help to answer the above questions. Scripture alone makes wise the simple, and those with an honest heart do not need another to explain what “putting away” means in scripture, what its reference to one who “is put away” indicates, and at what time the sundering was accomplished according to the Word of God. The question is: will we accept “the simplicity that is in Christ” (II Corinthians 11:3; cf. II Thessalonians 2:10-12)? ----- Original Message ----- From: J Belknap Dear brother Morris, You wrote: Well, I guess this about shuts down the debate on “mental divorce” for the time being. Nothing happened. Nothing changed. No one changed their teaching on the matter. I just wonder how many couples have fallen into this category of “mental” divorce? Is it worth all of the time and effort being put into this debate? I hope you do not continue to think “Nothing happened. Nothing changed.” I am hoping that we have proven to you that brother Tim (and others) can not give any more than their assertions for their post-divorce (second) “putting away” doctrine. Tim wrote: “Two people vowed before the divine witness (Mal. 2:14) in forming the marriage, and two people have the ability to disavow each other.” And “The rightful party exercises ONE putting-away. It may be subsequent to a previous unlawful putting-away, but by definition, it is not a ‘second’ putting-away. It is not like the unlawful putting-away.” When asked repeatedly - for a “thus saith the Lord” to support these assertions we heard nothing (NO THING). What does that tell you??? As we continue to wait for Tim to try and find a Biblical answer (i.e. book, chapter and verse) for his assertions above, his debate with brother J. T. Smith is right around the corner, Lord willing. I pray that Tim will have time and opportunity to denounce his error beforehand and help stay the plague of this present apostasy. Be sure brother Morris, more and more couples are falling into “this category” everyday! Many eternal souls are at stake, while many “watchmen” are at ease in Zion! Hence, it is “worth all of the time and effort being put into this debate” (Jude 3-4). May The Almighty richly bless all the good efforts for TRUTH (I Tim. 6:12)! Brotherly, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Pat Donahue I had a friend that had to leave a congregation on the West side of Athens, AL about 12 years ago, because they were harboring three “mental divorce” cases. There are many more cases of this than the Homer Hailey teaching. Nobody will say that they are in a “mental divorce” situation (in those words). But when you ask them who actually got the divorce, then you find out. Patrick Donahue |
|