This is Dr. D. A. Waite speaking, and it is the 20th of July, 1991. I'm here in Naples, Florida, visiting my mother, and I'm going to begin answering the study, the paper entitled Divorce, a Comparative Study, compiled by Sandy Huntsman. It was given to me by a friend in Florida, and he requested that I answer it. It is 28 pages in all and I have a total of 96 different comments to make. First of all, I would suggest if you have this paper by Sandy Huntsman that you number the pages as I have done. I will refer to these pages. They are unnumbered when I received the document, but I will number them. Are you please number them and I'll refer to the pages by number and then I will go along the line, answering the 96 different points in order to answer the paper. I'm the director of the Bible for Today at 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey. And our number is 609-854-4452. If you have any questions on this whole subject of divorce and remarriage, please call me or write me at Bible for Today, Collingswood, New Jersey. All right, on page one I have points number one through six I'd like to mention. First of all, number one, point number one compiled by Sandy Huntsman. I take it that this is a woman. I could be wrong. If it is a woman, I do not believe that a woman has any right biblically to be giving a definitive study on a subject of theological importance and worth and merit. She should desist and cease from talking about something of this nature and writing it as an authoritative paper and the decisive factor in whether a person should be divorced and whether remarriage is permitted beyond and apart from the death of the mate, which I believe clearly is taught in scripture. I point number two on page one. She says the information contained in the document represents years of research. Well, that is very good that there is research and that there are years of research. But the Bible should be the primary area of research that should be done. And I believe that many of the comments that are made are extra biblical. They do amass a number of men's viewpoints on different things. But I believe that they are unscriptural in their application and their cogency. their understandability and their biblical truth. I have a third comment on page one. She says, it is not the purpose of the paper to discuss all the issues surrounding divorce, but rather to focus on only the proven innocent divorced remarried person. The proven innocent divorced remarried person. My question is, Are there any innocent people in a divorce or in a marriage? What do we mean by innocency? There are sins of omission and sins of commission. If you mean that a person who commits no sin of commission is innocent, what about the sin that he or she may commit of omission? There are many things in a marriage that will not make that marriage or allow that marriage to work. And it's not always someone that commits a sin of commission, but it could be omitting the things that ought to be love and cherishing and yieldedness. It could be, for example, in the area of the marriage bed, the marriage love, where there's a refusal on the part of the wife or on the part of the husband for married love and to have affection that is sincere and genuine. And so I do not believe personally that there's any real innocent party. Love must be nourished. Love must be provided. I realize there are some parties that seem more innocent than the other, but I really do not believe that there are angels, either male or female, in the married state. I do not believe that there are such things as angels. With wings, wherever they may sprout, on their heads, on their hands, from their backs, we are sinners. And if we're saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we're saved sinners, but we're still sinners. And I do not believe that any of us can be completely called innocent. No matter if we're still married to our mates for life, or whether we're married at one time and then we have been divorced or separated, we cannot consider ourselves to be innocent. That would be that we're perfect. And when Pilate said, I have betrayed the innocent blood, he referred to the Lord Jesus Christ as innocent and I believe that we cannot assume innocency in the entire complete sense by any of us in the marriage so let me just make that comment number four comment number four out of ninety six on page one the study she says has been accompanied with a great deal of anxiety for several reasons number one the uncertainty of what scripture is actually taught and how they would affect my personal situation, how the scriptures would affect my personal situation. I'm not sure what her personal situation is. If Sandy Huntsman is a woman, whether she is divorced and unmarried, whether she is divorced and remarried, whether she's separated or whether she's still married, I don't know. But whenever you study a doctrine to see how it is going to affect your personal situation. By definition, this is called situation ethics. And how does the situation determine my action? And this, of course, could be taken as a situational ethical approach, which we, of course, are opposed to. And number five, comment number five out of 96. She says on page one, the fact that many leaders and ministers believe as I do, but for one reason or another, did not publicly state so. Well, no matter how many ministers, how many writers believe, as she does, that the so-called innocent party cannot only get divorced, but can be remarried scripturally, biblically, and with the blessings of God, without any distinction, without any curse, without any blemish, without any charge of being adultery. This we, of course, believe to be an erroneous position as scriptures clearly indicate but uh... she's looking for leaders to go out publicly and state their belief and uh... no matter though hand joined in hand as the proverbs say the wicked shall not go unpunished and you can have hand on hand over hand in a chain a human chain of ministers and leaders and preachers that believe this erroneous doctrine of divorce and remarriage prior to the death of the mate. You can have thousands of proofs of people that believe that and practice that. Does that make it scriptural? No, it does not. And we will see that it is most unscriptural, very unscriptural. Alright, point number 6 out of 96 on the bottom of page 1. She says it's becoming increasingly impossible to avoid the issue Well, that's correct. We certainly agree on that. It is impossible to avoid the issue. And I believe the issue has been faced and it has been faced squarely in the scriptures and in the Lord Jesus' comments and work. The most comprehensive book, I believe, if you want to be looking at a book and what men have studied and looked at on the various views, the title of it is Jesus and Divorce. The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus. It's by William A. Heff and Gordon J. Wenham. It's out of print now, but the Bible for today has brought it back into print. It was published originally in 1984 and then again in 1985 by Thomas Nelson and company. The Bible for today has put it back into print. It's number 1916. Number 1916. If you're interested in getting this book, It is to me the most extensive, comprehensive book standing against divorce, remarriage, while the mate is still alive. It takes up such things as the early church view, the early church view in a modern exposition, the Erasmian interpretation in early exponents, modern defenses of the Erasmian view, Erasmus took the view of divorce and remarriage of the innocent party, a critique of the Erasmus view, Old Testament considerations, a critique of the Erasmus view, New Testament considerations, then the unlawful marriages view, the betrothal view, the preterative view, the traditio-historical view, and then conclusions and implications. It's a very extensive book with many bibliographical citations, many books that have been consulted, pages in all. That is available if you're interested in that. Write us, Bible for Today, Collingswood, New Jersey, or simply call us 609-854-4452 and ask how you may receive your copy of number 1916, out of print book, Jesus and Divorce, The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus. Alright, we're on page number two of this book, or this paper I should say, by Sandy Huntsman, Divorce, a Comparative Study. On page 2 we have points number 7 through 12 that we'd like to mention out of 96. Point number 7, she says superior position, only my position is right. These are various dangers considering positionalizing ourselves on divorce and remarriage prior to the death of a mate. Well, my friend, I believe that the Bible has a superior position, and I believe we can say of the Bible's position, only my position is right. Only my position is right. And that's the position of the Scriptures, the Word of God, and that's an entirely defensible position in any Bible doctrine. And this is a Bible doctrine, as you know. Alright, point number eight. When scripture speaks clearly and its meaning is obvious, we are to stand firmly and earnestly contend. Well, I agree with that point on page 2. We should earnestly contend and that's what I am doing in the present tape in answer to this paper. I am contending because I believe that the scriptural meaning and the scriptures are clear and therefore I stand firm upon the Word of God. Point number 9 out of 96, page 2. of this paper, where principles must be interpreted and applied by the reader, there must be tolerance for different opinions. Tolerance for different opinions. Well, I disagree with that. I do not have tolerance with any opinions of scripture which I deem to be erroneous, which I deem to be heretical. I'm not tolerant of evil. I'm not tolerant of wrongdoing. I understand why people may want to commit adultery, and to marry prior to the death of their mate. I can understand it, but I'm not tolerant of it, and I don't believe it's a correct and proper position. Well, point number 10, she says, is this one. Overreaction, she says, tends to move people toward two extremes. The first extreme is, I don't care what others think, because I know what I believe, attitude. Well, is this one of the two extremes? I don't care what others think. I know what I believe attitude. Well, I believe that her position is an extreme position because it's a position that understands divorce and remarriage while the mate is still living is scriptural. And I believe that she has an extreme position there too. And she doesn't seem to care what others hold and what others think. And because I know what I believe, this seems to be her position in the paper. Sandy Huntsman, as she's writing the paper. Point number 10 out of 96. I guess this was point number 10. I don't care what others believe. Point number 11. She says, not every opinion is necessarily biblical, logical, or valid. I certainly agree with that. And I believe that her points of view are certainly not biblical, they're certainly not logical, and they're certainly not valid. Now I have point number 12 out of 96. She says we must, on page 2, we must absolve ourselves of bias, thoroughly investigate the facts, and adhere to sound biblical exegesis. Well, I agree with that. We ought to agree and adhere to sound biblical exegesis, and this is what I believe that I adhere to and which I believe that you'll have in answer to this paper. I believe the scriptures are very clear. Right on page number 3, by the way, as I said earlier, she has 28 pages. This is page 3, and out of 96 points, there are points number 13 through 15 on this page I'd like to comment on. Point number 13, she said, should divorce ever be sought? Should divorce ever be sought? Well, I believe that this is, for a Christian, it is certainly unbiblical to seek divorce because divorce by its very nature is a legal matter. Divorce by its very nature means to go before a court of law and to have a judge decree that you are no longer married to this man or to this woman. Now if the person that you are married to is a Christian, a believer, The Lord Jesus Christ, if you are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, both of you are saved. We have some teaching in 1 Corinthians chapter 6 that has a bearing on this matter. 1 Corinthians chapter 6 cautions believers against going to law with other believers and especially before unbelievers and unbelieving courts. So this certainly would seem to preclude divorce of any kind, because it says in verse 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1, dare any of you having a matter against another go to law before the unjust and not before the saints, and so on. If you then have judgments concerning this life, how much more to pertain to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. But verse 6 says, 1 Corinthians 6, 6, But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Yea, nay, ye do wrong and defraud, and that your brethren. Verse 8. So 1 Corinthians 6, to me, speaks out loudly and clearly and says to believers not to go to law or to court with one another in a matter of marriage. Now, separation may be one thing, but a divorce or something that would mean that you take a Christian to the courts, the unsaved courts, and ask the unsaved court to pronounce a judgment upon you, to me is unscriptural. And so I believe we should not seek divorce. I believe it's very clear on that grounds, if that grounds alone. And then point number 14, does divorce permit remarriage? And does remarriage qualify a person from the ministry? Well, definitely divorce does not permit remarriage. As we will see from scripture, divorce never permits remarriage until, of course, the death of the mate. That's very clear in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 and in Mark 10. And in Luke 19, or is it 16? The portion in Luke which is very clear. Let me see here. Luke chapter 16 it is. Yes, chapter 16. These are very clear passages indeed. In fact, Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 are also clear, very clear, if the words are properly understood. And so, they should never permit remarriage. divorce people, and then does remarriage disqualify a person from the ministry? Her position is that it does not disqualify a person from the ministry. A person can be divorced and remarried, divorced and remarried, divorced and remarried, and still be a preacher, a pastor. Where the scriptures are very clear that he is to be the husband of one wife. And certainly he is also to be without reproach, The qualifications for a pastor are very clearly laid down in Titus chapter 1 and 1 Timothy chapter 3. In 1 Timothy chapter 3, for example, it says concerning the pastor or the bishop, the elder, they're one and the same office, the bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, of good behavior. Now how can he be blameless if he's divorcing and remarrying and divorcing and remarrying the husband of one wife until death parts them he is not to be divorced he's not to be remarried and this I think is very clear and I think the same is true in Titus chapter 1 where similar words are spoken concerning the qualifications of the elder which is the pastor the bishop the elder in verse 6 Titus 1 6 if any be blameless the husband of one wife blamelessness does not mean divorce and remarriage divorce and remarriage the husband of one wife that is one wife legally until death parts them and some even have felt and have thought that passage means one wife even if the wife dies I do not hold that position I believe that it is those those who are having a wife who has died and may he therefore may remarry certainly and his does not disqualify him as a pastor, but certainly divorce does disqualify and he's not blameless. So that's number 14. Point number 15, basically there are three schools of thought among religious teachers on these issues and she gives them there. I really believe that there are four schools of thought. She just gives three. She says number one, divorce and remarriage permissible on any grounds. Number two, divorce and remarriage permissible on incest on several grounds like adultery, desertion, abuse, incest, financial irresponsibility, incompatibility, etc. And three, middle school, divorce is permitted on only one ground, adultery. This school also includes two additional scriptural grounds, divorce and remarriage prior to salvation or desertion by an unbeliever. So this is the middle ground between these other positions. That was the fourth position. And she doesn't even mention this. She doesn't even mention this position among religious leaders. Well, are not William Heth and Gordon Wenham, religious leaders, did not their book, Jesus and Divorce, The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus, ever enter her bibliography? These men are scholars, they're students. I may not agree with everything that they do, and certainly I don't. I'm a biblical separatist, a Baptist, and they are not biblical separatists, possibly, and undoubtedly. But certainly that is another position. It's a biblical position. A fourth position is there's no divorce and remarriage under any circumstances until the death of the mate. Now that's point number 15 we'd like to mention. All right, go to page 4 now. her 28 pages. We'll find point number 16 out of 96 that we want to comment on. And she says the Bible is a legal document and they have legal terms and legal ideas. Well, that's right, there are rules, but the document, the Bible, must be interpreted dispensationally. And I find in This lady's paper, Sandy Huntsman, I take it again that this is a woman, if it isn't why you correct me and change all the female references to male. But in her paper she has not followed the dispensational interpretation of the scriptures. She does not take any difference between Old Testament and Law and the New Testament and the Lord Jesus Christ and Grace. and by so much she misinterprets the scripture and therefore even though the Bible is a legal document, it must be interpreted dispensationally. The Old Testament cannot be the rule for the New Testament and the New Testament is not the rule for the Old Testament. They are separate dispensations and we've got to understand it as such. Alright, page 5. We go into 17 and 18 differences that we have out of 96. And number 17 point is on page five of her paper, the rule of precedent. She says we must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. And well, I agree with the known usage. But if there are, by the way, if you hear noises in the background, that's my wife's dryer, I guess, were in my mother's home in Naples, Florida. And of course, it's not in a private tape room like we normally make our tapes. But I thought I would do some of the material and answering some of the things while I'm here in Florida. And so you'll just have to take any sounds as they should come up. All right. Dispensations, again, must pay a lot of attention, a lot of understanding as far as this rule of the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. The Old Testament usage of a word cannot be used exclusively for the New Testament. We must take the New Testament usage of terms by themselves in the New Testament context and we must be interpreting scripture dispensationally. What is a dispensation? It's a period of time or it's a type of arrangement whereby God operates in a certain manner. Sometimes it's not periods of time. I am a dispensationalist. I went to Dallas Theological Seminary. That is a school that teaches dispensationalism. At least it did when I went there from 1948 to 1953. I understand there's some modifications of the scriptural and dispensational approach in Dallas Seminary. Presently, I cannot vouch for what they teach now. The Schofield Bible is a dispensational approach to scripture. And I believe that we have three major dispensations. There are others, but certainly law and grace and kingdom are the three that stand out very definitely. There are different ways that God deals with this world and these three different dispensations there are others as I say and of course there's a difference between Israel or the Jews in the Old Testament and the church in the New Testament difference completely different areas of the covenants that God has made the covenant with Moses the law grace in the New Testament the dispensation of grace and the new covenant and certainly the millennial kingdom which is the fulfillment of the Palestinian covenants and even the Abrahamic covenants. They're covenants, they're dispensations and we cannot say that the known usage of a word is the same no matter what dispensation it may fall into. This certainly is not true. This certainly, in fact, is not only not true, it is false. Quite number 18 out of 96 on page 5 She says they form a part of a single whole that is a rule of unity. Well, there again, we do not concur with this. because there is not a single hole in the Bible. There is a single hole if you interpret the Bible dispensationally, but you cannot bring over the law of the Old Testament and what the Jews were under and bring it into the context of grace in the New Testament, which the church is not under. We're not under the law. The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by the Lord Jesus Christ. Alright, page number 6 of 28. of Sandy Huntsman and we have now points number 19 through 23 19 through 23 of our 96 points that we'd like to take up point number 19 on page 6 she says Christ's divorce law in Matthew 5 32 Well, she begins with the wrong verse, in my judgment. She begins with Matthew 5.32. She should begin with a clear, unmistakable view of divorce and remarriage. She should not begin with Matthew 5.32, in my judgment. She says, 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, commiteth adultery. All right, now this is where she begins. This is where she begins, and I believe it's wrong to begin there. Now, I can give an understanding of what this verse means very clearly, very simply, but she should have begun at clear, unmistakable teachings of the Word of God that have no except for fornication, no exception clauses, crystal clear passages. For instance, I would begin at Mark, well, first of all, I'd begin in Exodus chapter 20. Exodus chapter 20 and verse 14, thou shalt not commit adultery. Now that's just as clear, just as plain as you'd want to have. Now that Old Testament law is repeated in the New Testament as well, the commission of adultery. And then I would go to Mark chapter 10. Mark chapter 10 would be the place to go where the Lord Jesus clearly teaches From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause, this is 10.6 and 10.7, this far shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, so then they are no more twain but one flesh. Verse 9, what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And verse 11 says, and he saith unto them, In the house, his disciples asked him again of the same matter, and he said unto them in verse 11, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. Verse 12 says, And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. This is a very clear, unmistakable, no ifs, ands, or buts statement concerning divorce and remarriage. The Lord Jesus teaches clearly that whosoever shall put away his wife, that is, divorce his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. The entire paper of Sandy Huntsman argues against this clear teaching. She says if you put away your wife, if you're a man, if it's for the cause that she gives, You can marry another, and it's not adultery. She is taking the words of the Lord Jesus Christ right out of his mouth and denying them, and calling Christ a liar. He says, whosoever, that means anybody, in any state, in any situation, whatever the cause, shall put away his wife. And if you marry another, then you commit adultery against that wife that you've divorced. Adultery. is sexual contact and union on the part of a married person. And you commit adultery against that wife. And then in verse 12, very clear, And if a woman shall put away her husband, that is, divorce her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. The Lord Jesus does not say that a woman can put away her husband for this cause or that cause or some other cause and then she's not an adulteress. She doesn't commit adultery. He says nothing whatever to say about any exceptions whatsoever. It's crystal clear. Mark 10, 11 and 12 in that whole context. And then she should have gone over to Luke chapter 16 and verse 18. Another crystal clear verse on the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ about adultery. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another. He doesn't say any exceptions. He doesn't say any ifs, ands, or buts. He says, if you put away and divorce your wife, and you marry another, commiteth adultery. Committeth adultery. Now that is the clear teaching of the Word of God. You are an adulterer, my friend, if you have put away your wife and marry another. And whosoever marrieth her, now not in the course of I believe what's said of the man is also true of the woman. The woman puts away her husband, she is an adulteress after she marries another. And notice, not only is this true, that if you put away your wife and marry another, you commit adultery, but whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery. If you marry a woman who is divorced, Put away, you are committing adultery, young man, older man, whatever it may be, as well. Now these are crystal clear teachings. Mark 10, Luke 16. and this should be the place where we should begin the study of divorce and remarriage not with a doubtful or seemingly an exceptional passage which indeed is clear but it seems to be not clear we should go also to Romans chapter 7 Romans chapter 7 verse 2 for the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth bound, so long as he liveth. Now notice, but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. Now there's no exceptions on that. It's a crystal clear passage in teaching. There's no problems about it. Nobody who understands the English language could have any doubts as to the meaning of Paul in verse 3 of Romans 7 she should 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 so in Romans chapter 7 verses 2 and 3 the clear teaching is that death and death alone breaks the marriage bond not divorce whether it's by government whether it's by law whatever it is by That does not break the marriage bond, and if you are married to some other person, husband or wife, if you're married to some other person while your mate is still alive, you are an adulterer, you are an adulteress, and that is your title. Put it right up upon your head, because that's what you are. And then 1 Corinthians chapter 7, another clear teaching of the Word of God, that you should go on to, not to Matthew 5 or Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 7, for example, and verse 15, let's see, verse 10 rather. The married I say yet not unto the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband. 1 Corinthians 7, 10. Let not the wife depart. Don't even let her depart or leave or have a separation from her husband. That's the clear teaching of the Word of God. by Paul, as he speaks very clearly, and then in verse 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. Do not put away your wife, husbands, or wives, don't put away your husband by extension and by analogy, Because there's only two things that you can do if you are separated from your husband, separated from your wife. You either remain unmarried the rest of your life, until that mate dies, or you be reconciled to that husband, or be reconciled to that wife. There's no two ways about it. There's nothing more to do. You can't be married to some other man, some other woman. You will be called an adulterer, you will be called an adulteress, according to these other verses. Then the clear teaching of 1 Corinthians 7, And verse 39, the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth. But if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord. Now notice, only death breaks the marriage bond. Clear, crystal clear teaching of the Word of God. And this is where Sandy Huntsman should have begun, rather than taking her her false doctrine, her false teaching of divorce and remarriage, beginning with Matthew 5.32. She begins with the wrong verse. All right, number 20 out of 96. We're still on page 6 of her paper. She says, in Moses' time, as other times, many Jews were cruel to their wives and so on, and God permitted divorce because of this. This is from Josephus. Again, dispensationalism should be brought into play here and should be brought to bear. There is no teaching in the Old Testament law unless the teaching is trans-dispensational, what we call trans-dispensational, going over other dispensations. There's no teaching in the Law of Moses, per se, that is to be carried over unless it's clearly carried over into the New Testament. And the divorce situation certainly is not carried over into the New Testament. There is no part of the divorce law of Moses in the Old Testament law for Israel that is to be carried over into the New Testament rules for the church. These rules are laid down by the Lord Jesus Christ in Mark and Luke very clearly. In Matthew, a little more questionably, but still very clearly if you understand what he's saying. And also 1 Corinthians 7 in two places, verse 15 and verse 39. Also Romans chapter 7 verses 2 and 3. Now these are the passages that are crystal clear and we don't go back to Moses law, we don't go back to the Old Testament practice and custom. Referred to the Lord Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount where he repeatedly says, He have heard that it's been said. and so and so, but I say unto you, you've heard that it hath been said, but I say unto you, you've heard that it hath been said, but I say unto you, and He is the One who has completely revolutionized, completely changed the entire Law of Moses. We're not under any part of the Law of Moses, not even the Ten Commandments as such. all nine out of the ten the tenth one is not repeated remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy the other nine commandments are reiterated in the context of grace in the New Testament and are bought or rather are adopted and practiced or to be practiced by the church because they're New Testament teachings not because they're Old Testament under the law at all all right that's number 20 number 21 point out of 96 she says we are here mainly Concerned with the fact that the divorce dissolved the marriage and the woman could go and be another man's wife. Deuteronomy 24, 3 and 4. Again, she's taking that out of context. It's dispensationally not applied to the church or to the age of grace, but only to the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 24. She has not got clearly a dispensational distinction. Point 22 out of 96 on page 6 still, she says, If God's law of divorce and separation, why did He not command this woman to remain unmarried instead of saying she could marry again and again? This is Old Testament. We cannot use Old Testament teachings to teach New Testament doctrine. And 1 Corinthians 7.15 very clearly teaches that there are two alternatives to someone who is separated from her husband or someone who is separated from his wife. Number one, either to remain unmarried completely the rest of their life until the maid dies, or two, be reconciled to the husband or to the wife. And then the 23rd comment out of 96, the bottom of page 6, she says that God spoke of her first husband as her former husband. Again, it's Old Testament, it's not to be applied into the New Testament age of grace at all. All right, we're on page 7 of Sandy Huntsman's paper. And we have points number 24 through 27 out of 96. Point number 24, she says, the evidence is clear and strong that biblical divorce signified the absolute dissolution of marriage with the right to remarry. Well, this is divorce and remarriage rather by duty. Page 24, we disagree with that. The biblical concept of divorce in the New Testament is very clear as the Lord Jesus Christ says as we quoted before in the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke as well that there is no cause of divorce at all except that which is given and that which is supposedly to be by the death of the mate now that's the only cause for divorce there's no other cause there's no other reason Nothing else is given. No other course of action can be followed except to stay married. And if you're separated, don't remarry. And if you do remarry, you are called an adulterer or an adulteress. So this is absolutely not true that biblical divorce signifies a right to remarry. This is simply a statement that is made. The 25th comment out of 96, page 7, She talks about the schools, rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai, the two rival schools. These are schools of the Old Testament law, interpreting divorce in the Old Testament times. We are not to be bound by the rabbi Hillel or the rabbi Shammai. We have a New Testament teaching. And this is again, wrongly, dispensationally applied. Using Old Testament instead of New. 26 points out of 96. She says the denial of remarriage after divorce was unknown to Jews. Again, it's Old Testament. We're not concerning ourselves with what the Jews could do or couldn't do under Old Testament law. Are you a Jew? Am I a Jew? Are you under the Old Testament law? Am I under the Old Testament law? Or am I and you both, all of us, if we're saved under the dispensation of the age of God's grace? Well, you better believe we're under the dispensation of God's grace. God's grace is what has saved us by faith in Christ, and we are continuously under grace, not under law at all. 27th point. She says, the court in interpreting them should be placed as nearly as possible in the same situation as the writer. The principle of the documents. Well, again, we do not place ourselves in the same position as the writer of the Old Testament. because we're not under the law of the Old Testament. So this is a fallacious statement. Alright, number 28 comment out of 96, page 7 at the bottom. Jesus, she says, in his divorce law used a decisive expression saving for the cause of fornication. That is a decisive expression and he used it in the context and in the verses in Matthew chapter 5 and Matthew chapter 19 which also used another word for sexual impurity, namely, the word adultery. And so here you have a context where fornication, pornea, and adultery, the verb moicheo, these two words are juxtaposed in the identical same verse. First, Matthew 5, verse 32. Fornication and adultery, the same is true in Matthew chapter 19. Matthew chapter 19 and verse 9, where fornication is used in the same verse with adultery. In fact, adultery is used twice in Matthew 19.9. Fornication is used once. And so with the Matthew 5.32, fornication is used once, adultery is used twice. Whatever and wherever the word porneia or fornication is used throughout the scriptures, the Old Testament, the New Testament, whatever the investigation may lead to, the context of Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 must be the guiding factor as to the meaning of that word in that verse or in those two verses. You can go all over creation and say fornication means this, and this, and this, in this context, in this passage, in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, here and there, and yonder. But, when the Lord Jesus Christ is trying to make something clear and simple to the Jews, with their customs, with their practice, in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, He clarifies it by the juxtaposition and the use of two separate terms, fornication and adultery in the same verses and thereby makes a distinction in those two words which we cannot afford to neglect or to deny. This, this writer does not make, she does not make such distinctions. Alright, so we go to page 8 of Sandy Huntsman's 28 page paper. And we take up points number 29 through 33 of the 96 things we want to comment. Point number 29 out of 96. She says Bengal Road adultery is sufficient ground for divorce because it's the actual breaking of the marriage tie. Well, that's his opinion. That is not an opinion of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, the Lord Jesus Christ in Mark chapter 10 clearly says that If you break the marriage tie and marry another, you commit adultery. Far from adultery, breaking the tie. If you break the tie and marry another, you are an adultery. You become an adultery. You commit adultery. He has the cart before the horse. He says in Mark 10 and verse 11, Whosoever shall put away his wife, divorce his wife, and marry another, Committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery. And so adultery, by definition of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, in Mark and in Luke, very clearly, without any question, any exception, adultery is the marrying of someone, not your mate, before the mate has died. That's by definition of adultery. And in the book of Romans, as in the Old Testament, Exodus chapter 20, thou shalt not commit adultery. Adultery is a sin that is spoken of against. It is spoken against in the New Testament context, as well as in the Old. It's a trans-dispensational teaching, therefore, and doctrine. On number 30 out of 96, on page 8, Sandy Huntsman says, What Jesus legislated about divorce and remarriage is connected with this official Jewish divorce certificate, Deuteronomy 24, 1-2. The divorce writing was a letter of freedom. Again, Deuteronomy 24 is not the doctrine of the New Testament. It should be dispensationally understood. In the Old Testament, divorce laws do not apply, do not pertain in the New Testament in any way, shape, or manner. And they are not to be applied as such. 31st comment out of 96, for 14 centuries from Moses to Christ, this divorce bill that allowed remarriage was the one and only divorce of the Jews. I repeat, we're not talking about the divorce of the Jews, we're not talking about the divorce in the Old Testament, we're talking about the divorce in the New Testament under the age of grace for Christians, for believers, and it is absolutely fallacious and false to continuously refer to Old Testament practice when we are talking about what Jesus Christ and what the Lord Jesus Christ revealed to Paul and in the New Testament teachings on divorce and remarriage apart from the death of the mate. Number 32 out of 96, on the bottom of page 8, she says a letter of freedom according to the law of Moses and Israel. Here again, the law of Moses and Israel is not to be taken for what we believe today under the age of grace. And then the 33rd out of 96, the bottom of page 8, She says, Jesus is speaking about marriage as dissolved by the writing of divorcement and not as dissolved by death. Again, it's a Jewish custom and has nothing to do with the teaching of the New Testament of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is very clear, as I said before, in Mark 10 and Luke 16 and Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7. Crystal clear teachings on the subject of marriage. All right, let's go on to page 9, out of 28 pages, and we'll take points number 34 through 40 of 96. Point number 34 on page 9, he says, for the cause of fornication approved, when he says that, approved the Jewish divorce procedure. Jesus did not introduce a new kind of divorce, he did not abolish all divorce. All right, this again is Jewish divorce. The Jewish divorce has nothing, again, what to do with the Lord Jesus Christ. He taught clearly, let me repeat again, in Luke 16, 18. Luke 16, 18. Whosoever putteth away his wife, that's divorce, now here's his tea jam divorce, and marrieth another, committeth adultery. Very clear, very simple, while this mate is living. and whosoever marrieth her that is put away, that is divorced from her husband, commiteth adultery. So this is a very clear teaching. And it is a teaching of Mark chapter 10 as well. And verse 11, whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, commiteth adultery against her. And verse 12, and if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she commiteth adultery. And so adultery is very clear, divorce is very clear in the New Testament teaching of Christ, as well as that of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 and Romans 7. And really that's not the teaching of Paul, that's the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed to the Apostle Paul. Alright, the 35th out of 96 on page 9, 35th comment. Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, was minded to put her away privately. Matthew 1.19. Now notice the intention of the writing of divorcement and this she is using as a proof of her interpretation of Matthew 5.32 and Matthew 19. You know the Lord Jesus example in Matthew 1. is exactly the situation in the whole gospel of Matthew which is written primarily to the Jewish believers and to the Jews in Palestine and because it was written to the Jews they have this accepted view for fornication and he brought up Joseph who was minded to give her a bill of divorcement remember in Matthew 1 verse 18 the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise one as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost espoused to Joseph now notice she was not married to Joseph she was espoused she was engaged she was betrothed or betrothed and the betrothal custom of the Jews of that day was separate and distinct from the betrothal and engagement customs of today completely in New Testament practice She was Joseph's wife, even though she was only a spouse. He was Mary's husband, even though they were only a spouse. Why do I teach that? Why do I believe that? Because the Gospel of Matthew teaches that as well. Notice, Mary was a spouse to Joseph in Matthew 1.18. Matthew 1.19, Joseph, her husband, being a just man. not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately or to divorce her. Now, notice Joseph is called her husband. They're only espoused. They're only engaged. They're only betrothed. And yet, he was minded to put her away. Divorce was proper if there was no marriage prior to this. There was no marriage. They were simply espoused or betrothed. and the engagement was just there and yet they're called husband and Mary is called wife in verse 20 Matthew 1.20 while he thought on these things that as Joseph did behold the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream saying Joseph thou son of David fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife now they were not married they had not come together and had sexual union they were merely espoused according to Matthew 1.18 they were engaged and yet in verse 19 Joseph is called her husband and verse 20 Mary is called his wife now obviously under these conditions there could be a divorce and only in these conditions could there be a divorce because before you get out of betrothal according to the Jewish custom before you get out of espousal or engagement you had to break it by divorce this is not teaching that after the marriage is consummated you break it by divorce that was not the Jewish custom in practice but it was prior to marriage while they were still engaged, still espoused and the reason, the only reason that you would break it by divorce is if there had been fornication sexual relations prior to that marriage on the part of the husband or the wife then and only then could that engagement or a spousal period be broken by a divorce a writing of divorcement so that would break not the marriage which had been consummated by sexual union, but the espousal, but the engagement, but the betrothal, this is what would be broken. And Joseph thought that there was uncleanness in Mary because she obviously was with child. She was pregnant, she was going to have a child. She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And the Lord told her, fear not, to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost and she shall bring forth a son in verse 21 and thou shalt call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins and so Joseph was not minded after this in verse 24 to put her away but Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him and took unto him his wife now again espoused, wasn't a wife yet, but in a sense that we call a wife, was not married, no sexual union, in fact it says in verse 25, and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son and he called his name Jesus. He knew her not, there was no marriage as we know it before the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ and afterward there was a marriage ceremony and the marriage was consummated bisexual union. After this, Mary was not a perpetual virgin as the Roman Catholic Church falsely teaches. But here is very clear the custom, the practice in Matthew 1 and one we have in Matthew 5 and verse 31 and 32. Whosoever shall put his wife away, let him give her a writing of divorcement Now here again, the putting away of his wife, I believe, refers to the Joseph situation, putting away the wife who is espoused to him. Not the wife who is married to him, but the wife who is espoused to him. And then verse 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. So the cause of fornication is the fact that she had committed fornication before their marriage and before they had actually married but were under the espousal period that they found fornication that had been practiced and then he could put away his wife as Joseph was minded to put away his espoused wife Here, this would be the case of the spouse wife who would commit fornication on the part of unmarried people, cause of her to commit adultery, except for the cause of fornication. So this is the teaching and the meaning of the verse of fornication and the exceptional cause. We believe very clearly. All right, the 36th point out of 96 on page 9. of just and righteous men had used the Bill of Divorce to dissolve their marriages to unfaithful wives. Verse 36, well this again is Old Testament teaching. This was a clear teaching in the New Testament that it was if she had been unclean during the betrothal period and therefore he could divorce her as Joseph was minded to do to his wife Mary, who was still not his real wife but just a spouse. Alright, number 37 out of 96. The Privy Divorce was a merciful provision to spare an adulterous wife the shame and disgrace for public trial so this again is Old Testament it's not New Testament and we should not have it and use it all right point number 38 is found in page 9 where she talks about any breach of it would be treated as adultery no a breach of a betrothed wife of Joseph would be a breach of fornication because she was only in the betrothal part in the betrothal state and therefore it would be a sin of fornication prior to the marriage and that was again under the Mosaic law that she's speaking of. Then number 39 point Joseph the just man intended to use the Mosaic writing. Well that's not true it was the writing of the betrothal breaking or the law of divorcement for the betrothal and for the engagement, not for the marriage as such.