Divorce & Remarriage
A Review of Two Books & Two Opposing Views
Dr. Daniel Botkin

The divorce and remarriage question is a very touchy and explosive topic among Bible-believers, and with good reason. There are multitudes of believers who are currently married to someone other than their first spouse. Are all these divorced and remarried Christians presently living in a continual state of adultery? The answer to that question hinges on which theological position the Bible supports.

Two authors, Joseph Webb and Guy Duty, argue for two opposing views. Joseph Webb, in Till Death Do Us Part?, dogmatically asserts that divorced and remarried Christians are, indeed, living in adultery. Webb does not even consider such people to be real Christians. They cannot receive eternal life unless they end their "adulterous marriages," he says. Regardless of the circumstances of the divorce and remarriage and regardless of when it took place, "we should call them adulterers and adulteresses," Webb writes. The Church "should declare to them their lost condition, and remove them from leadership and membership until they repent." (Emphasis Webb's)

Guy Duty held the same "no divorce and remarriage" position for over 20 years. "I was so saturated with this belief," he writes, "that I looked upon those who disagreed with me as being some sort of heretics." However, after 14 years of in-depth research on the subject, Duty came to the conclusion that the Bible does allow for remarriage in certain cases.

Webb and Duty both profess a very high regard for the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. Webb emphasizes the importance of believing and obeying the Bible regardless of the cost. One reason he wrote his book was "to cause men and women to go back to the Scriptures," and he seems to have a sincere desire to proclaim only what the Scriptures teach.

Duty professes an equally high regard for the Scriptures. Before writing his book, he wrote a paper putting forth his arguments for remarriage and sent copies to ministers, church officials, Bible teachers, and born-again lawyers who knew the Bible, asking them to show him if he was in error. "It was my prayer that if I was in error that God would have it exposed," Duty writes, "because my soul recoiled in horror at the thought of leading anyone into sin." In his book Duty writes: "If anyone can refute what I have written, I will bless the hand that corrects me and gladly write a retraction."

How is it that two God-fearing men with an equally high regard for the Scriptures come to two opposing views on the divorce and remarriage question? From a close study of these two books, it seems that each writer's respective conclusion is determined by the answer to one single question in the divorce and remarriage controversy, viz., Can the marriage bond be broken by anything other than death?

The first chapter in Webb's book is about the concept of the husband and wife becoming "one flesh." Based on this, Webb says that marriage is "a relationship of permanency" and "a permanent gluing" which is absolutely indissoluble until death. According to Webb, even adultery cannot dissolve the marriage bond.

Duty also makes it clear that the question of "dissolution versus non-dissolution" is the determining question. "Does divorce for proven and unreconciled adultery dissolve marriage?" Duty asks. "This is the main question."

This is, indeed, the main question in the controversy, because if a Biblically-sanctioned divorce dissolves the marriage as completely as death would dissolve the marriage, then the innocent partner is free to remarry, but if a Biblically-sanctioned divorce means only separation without dissolution of the marriage, then the innocent partner is not free to marry another spouse until the first spouse dies. Both men know that this is the determining question, and each man sets out to prove his case by examining the Scripture passages that address the topics of marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 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. 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 7:1-3)

Webb relies very heavily on this particular passage and refers to it several times throughout his book. According to Webb, this passage conclusively proves that only death can end the one-flesh relationship of a husband and wife, even if a divorce takes place for adultery. Webb also uses this passage to support the idea that all divorced and remarried couples are living in a state of continual adultery. Because Paul said "she shall be called an adulteress," we should call all women who have been divorced and remarried adulteresses, Webb says, regardless of the reasons for the divorce and regardless of when the divorce took place. Webb's belief about the indissolubility of marriage would make this passage mean that a woman is bound to her ex-husband as long as he lives, because in Webb's mind the only "ex-husband" is a dead husband.

"I have read this portion [Rom. 7] to grade school children and said, 'Please tell me what this is saying.'" Webb writes. "Their response has always been clear, 'The Bible says married people are married for life.' Now I wonder," Webb continues, "if children can see that, why can't adults? Perhaps its [sic] because the children do not look at this portion of Scripture with preconceived ideas."

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's because children are not familiar with all the other passages that discuss divorce and remarriage. If this passage in Romans 7 were the only thing the Bible said about the subject, then Webb would be correct. Webb's zeal for the purity of marriage is commendable, but Duty's book shows that Webb has overlooked some very important things about this passage.

Duty correctly points out that Paul's purpose in writing this passage was not to give "The Christian Position on Divorce and Remarriage." The context (chapters 6 & 8) makes it clear that Paul was simply using a normal marriage relationship (one that ends by death) as an illustration to teach the Roman believers that they were freed from their bondage to sin in the same way that a widow is freed from bondage to her husband. Paul's reference to the marriage relationship was "incidental to Paul's main purpose." Paul is not stating that death is the only thing that can loose a woman from her husband; he is stating that death is the normal thing. He is stating "the general law of marriage," Duty says, which is "modified by Matthew's exception for adultery."

Duty is right. It is only for the sake of illustrating a point that Paul refers to a marriage relationship which has been dissolved by death (which is how marriage relationships are normally dissolved; dissolution by divorce was the exception). Paul is teaching us that just as a widow is loosed from her husband by death, so we are loosed from "the old man," "the body of sin," "the law of sin and death," etc. by the crucifixion of our old nature.

I wonder what Paul would say if we could talk to him and ask him, "Paul, are you writing this to teach us that marriage can be dissolved only by death, that there are no exceptions?" If I may take the liberty to answer for Paul, I believe this is how he would reply to our question: "Of course there are exceptions. 'I speak to them that know the law,' I said. Don't you know that the Torah binds the woman to her husband for life only if a divorce does not take place? 'The woman that hath a husband,' I said. A divorced woman does not have a husband. She has a 'former husband' according to the Torah. And don't you remember the words of the Messiah? 'Except it be for fornication,' He said. And I told the Corinthians that if an unbelieving spouse departs, a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. But the question of what dissolves a marriage is not the point I'm making.

I'm trying to teach you something about your freedom from the dominion of your old nature; I'm not instructing you about the Christian doctrine of divorce and remarriage."

It is very important to note that Paul was addressing this passage in Romans "to them that know the law." A knowledge of the Torah is necessary to correctly understand this passage. This passage is apt to be misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied by people who are ignorant of what the Torah says about divorce and remarriage in Deuteronomy 24, or by people who think that they can disregard Deuteronomy 24 because it is part of the Old Testament law.

Paul said that "a woman that hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband." Those who know the law know that a divorced woman does not have a "husband." She has a "former husband" (or "ex-husband" as we say in contemporary English). Paul said that it is the law that binds a woman to her husband as long as he lives. But where does the Torah bind a woman to her ex-husband as long as he lives? It does not. Those who know the law know that the law does not bind a woman to her former husband. On the contrary, the law frees the woman from her ex-husband; it does not bind her to him.

"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor 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. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 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; her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Yahweh: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." (Deut. 24:1-4)

According to Webb, the above instructions in Deuteronomy simply do not apply to anyone and should be ignored. Webb believes the following: 1) God did not initiate Moses to write these verses; 2) God refuted these instructions; 3) the old covenant "ended with the new one"; 4) "the old Mosaic way [is] gone"; 5) "the Old Testament is disposed of." (Emphasis Webb's) According to Webb, these instructions are contrary to the will of God, even though they are written in the Torah. In effect, Webb ends up pitting Moses against God.

Carrying out Webb's beliefs would result in the following: If Jack divorces Jill, and Jill marries a man who later dies or divorces her, then Jack and Jill should be re-united. Indeed, Jill should not even wait for the second husband to die or divorce her; she should leave her "adulterous marriage" and return to her original husband, Jack -- even though the Torah calls this "abomination before Yahweh."

Duty's study of Deuteronomy 24 led him to conclusions different from those of Webb. For the meanings of Hebrew words, Duty consulted Jewish scholars, including one who was a member of the official Jewish translation committee in America and another who was an expert in rabbinic law. The significant thing to Duty is the fact that Biblical divorce actually dissolved the marriage, freeing the woman to remarry.

To those who would argue that divorce does not mean dissolution, Duty cites twelve Hebrew and Greek lexicons to show that when the Bible speaks of divorce, it means dissolution, and not mere separation.

"Read any books by those with the opposite view on divorce," Duty says, "and you will see that not one of them has quoted a Hebrew or Greek authority on the teaching that divorce means 'separation from bed and board.' There is none. Every lexicon I have searched has the same meaning of dissolution ... Twelve leading Hebrew and Greek lexicons define 'put away' as dissolution. Not a single authority can be named for separation."

Why is the question of dissolution versus separation so important? Duty writes, "If dissolution can be proved, then there is no question about the right to remarriage, because our opponents deny remarriage on the grounds of non-dissolution."

"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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." (Matt. 5:32)

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

"EXCEPT"

Even though Jesus used the word "except," Webb insists that there are no exceptions to allow divorce. "No exceptions!" he writes. (Emphasis Webb's) Webb tells us that one rule of hermeneutics (the science of interpreting Scripture) is that obscure and unclear passages of Scripture must be interpreted in the light of passages that are clear. Then Webb informs us that Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 are "obscure" and "unclear." However, he does not explain why these passages should be considered obscure and unclear. These statements of Jesus were certainly not spoken in obscurity. Matthew 5 was spoken in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 19 was spoken in public to a group of Pharisees. As for clarity, both passages make it clear that the introduction of "fornication" into a marriage results in an exception to the general rule of marriage for life. These statements seem to be every bit as clear as the passages of Scripture that Webb quotes to support his "no exceptions" position. Nonetheless, Webb insists that his proof-texts are the "clear" passages, and Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 are the "obscure and unclear." In Webb's mind, passages that do not mention the exceptions to the general rule are the "clear" passages, and the passages that do clarify the subject by mentioning the exceptions are the "unclear."

Duty, on the other hand, points out that the mentioning of an exception to the general rule clarifies, rather than obscures. He devotes an entire chapter in his book to the meaning and significance of the word "except." He cites five Greek lexicons to prove that the Greek word has the same meaning as our English word "except." He then cites three English dictionaries and three legal authorities to demonstrate that the use of the word "except" means that there are exceptions. He quotes leading Greek scholars to prove that the exception applies not only to the divorce, but also to the remarriage mentioned in these passages.

"FORNICATION"

The Greek word translated "fornication" is porneia. Webb admits that porneia can have a broad meaning that includes any form of sexual immorality, including adultery. However, Webb says that adultery is not grounds for divorce. He says that in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9, the word porneia absolutely must be assigned the narrow meaning of sex between two unmarried people only. To think that porneia includes adultery, Webb says, "violates the obvious truth of our clear premise verses." (Emphasis Webb's) (Webb's "clear premise verses" are the ones that do not clarify the subject by mentioning the exceptions.)

Webb discusses the custom of Jewish betrothal, which required a divorce if the engagement was to be broken, and mentions Joseph's decision to quietly divorce Mary when he assumed she had committed fornication. Webb says that when Jesus said "except it be for fornication," He was referring only to premarital sex during the betrothal period. Webb offers no proof to substantiate this claim.

According to Webb's theology, if my bride-to-be cheats on me before we're married, I can break off the engagement, but if she cheats on me after the wedding, I'm stuck with her. So if she wants to play the harlot, all she has to do is wait until after the wedding, because I can't divorce her then. If porneia is Biblical grounds for divorce before the wedding, how much more should it be grounds for divorce after the wedding? Which is the more grievous sin, unfaithfulness before taking the wedding vows, or unfaithfulness after the wedding vows?

What is Webb's advice to those who have a spouse who is committing adultery? "Just completely forgive him or her in Jesus' name," he says, "and let God do as He sees fit." Webb asks this question to those with adulterous spouses: "Are you loving them, and showing affection to them, as you did before the offense? If not, you're only agreeing to detente."

Duty devotes an entire chapter to the word porneia, and quotes dozens of sources to prove that the word means any sexual sin, both before and after marriage. Of those who, like Webb, claim that it means only premarital sex in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9, Duty writes: "As usual, they give no proof for their dogmatic statements. When a man has proof, he doesn't have to be dogmatic, all he has to do is submit his evidence."

Duty also discusses zanah, the Hebrew equivalent of porneia, to show that Jesus' Jewish audience would have understood "fornication" to mean any sexual immorality, not just premarital sex: "As Jesus did not give the least indication that He changed the Old Testament meaning of the word, this was the only sense in which they could possibly understand it. The meaning of premarital-sin-only was never attached to the word."

Duty carries the "no exceptions/no divorce" position to its logical conclusion by applying it to real-life situations. He points out that sometimes married men commit horrible sex crimes. "Does God now require His innocent saints to be one flesh with them?" Duty asks. "Can these offenders, after serving a prison term for their sex crimes, return and renew their one-flesh relation with their innocent mates who - on the premarital view - were forbidden to divorce them?" Duty says that one no-divorce teacher he debated said yes, Christ requires the innocent to be one flesh with convicted sex criminals. "To be consistent, he had to admit it," Duty writes. Duty also reminds us that in 1 Corinthians 5, God banished fornicators from fellowship with His Church. "Would He require His saints to be 'one flesh' with them?" he asks.

Duty also refers to "the law of jealousies" in Numbers chapter 5, which tells of God's curse on an adulterous wife. "God did not require a Jew to 'cleave to' and be 'one flesh' with an adulterous wife whose body swelled and rotted under His curse. He could divorce her and remarry and be guiltless while she still lived in her God-cursed body ... Moses punished the guilty and set the innocent free to remarry. He did not bind virtue with the chains of debauchery." The Mosaic covenant "set the guiltless mates free to remarry," Duty points out. The new covenant is called a "better covenant" (Heb. 7:22 & 8:6). "So," Duty writes, "if the better covenant requires the guiltless to be one flesh with sex offenders, then it seems that Moses gave the guiltless a better deal."

HILLEL AND SHAMMAI

Jesus' statement in Matthew 19:9 was His response to the Pharisees' question, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause [NASB, 'any cause at all']?" In the days of Jesus there were two prevailing views on the divorce question, the view of Rabbi Hillel and the view of Rabbi Shammai. Hillel taught that a man could divorce his wife for any trivial reason, even for burning his dinner. Shammai, on the other hand, taught that the phrase "some uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24 applied only to sexual immorality, and therefore the only grounds for divorce in Israel was adultery.

Webb claims that Jesus "ignored Hillel and Shammai as though they didn't exist." (Emphasis Webb's) Because Jesus did not answer the Pharisees' question with the words "I agree with Rabbi Shammai," Webb says that Jesus was not endorsing Shammai's view -- even though Jesus was stating the very thing Shammai taught.

Duty disagrees with Webb, and quotes several sources (Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic) to show that Jesus was, indeed, endorsing the position of Shammai. "It was not Christ's purpose to take sides in these disputes," Duty writes. In answering the Pharisees' question about divorce, it was "an incidental result" that Jesus' answer did uphold one side, namely that of Shammai.

Duty also points out that the debate between the every-cause of Hillel and the one-cause of Shammai was not a dispute about a divorced person's right to remarry. All agreed that a divorced person had the right to remarry. The dispute was only about the lawful grounds for divorce. "Would Jesus make it right for a man to divorce an adulterous wife and then make it wrong for him to remarry?" Duty asks. "What kind of law would that be which establishes a right but places a no-marriage penalty upon anyone who uses the right?"

Duty quotes several sources to show that for 14 centuries before Christ, divorce "had the one and only meaning of dissolution with the right to remarriage." We must understand the word "divorce" the same way as it was understood by Jesus' Jewish audience, Duty says. Because of Christ's words "except for fornication," Duty says that after hearing Jesus' sermon that day, "any Jew in that crowd was free to go to a Jewish court and divorce an adulterous and unrepentant spouse with the writing of divorcement." And this divorce would have allowed the innocent party to remarry, because "denial of remarriage after divorce was unknown to Jews."

"Jesus approved the Jewish divorce that allowed remarriage, but He restricted this Jewish divorce law to the cause of fornication," Duty concludes. "He corrected the abuse of the divorce privilege, but approved the right use of it."

"...Yahweh hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For Yahweh, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away [divorce]: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith Yahweh of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." (Malachi 2:14-16)

Webb quotes from this passage at least five or six times in his book, and each time he quotes it, it is for the purpose of confirming his premise that God makes a husband and wife one flesh for life, without exception. Webb ignores the context, though, which makes it clear that the divorce which God hates is a divorce that involves treachery against an innocent spouse. (The word "treacherously" appears three times in the passage.) To divorce an adulterous wife is not treachery -- she is the treacherous one! "For centuries in Israel, 'just' men had divorced harlot wives and remarried, and God never called that treachery," Duty writes. "God did not hate divorce for adultery and sex perversion."

"10 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 that woman that hath an husband that believeth not, if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him ... 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 ... 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28a But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; 28b and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned." (1 Cor. 7)

Webb says that Paul was not addressing this statement in verse 28a ("But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned") to the "loosed from a wife" people in the previous verse. To support his argument, Webb again appeals to the hermeneutic principle of letting the clear verses explain the unclear. And of course for Webb, this verse must be labeled "unclear," since it would otherwise contradict his no-remarriage position. "If it did refer to divorcees," Webb writes, "then this one obscure verse, would make void all the clear verses, and contradict all the clear teaching in God's Word." (Emphasis Webb's)

To whom, then, was Paul addressing these words in verse 28a? According to Webb, Paul was not speaking to the "loosed from a wife" people that he had just spoken to in the previous verse. Rather, he was addressing the "virgins" whom he had mentioned three verses earlier. Webb points out that similar instructions are given to virgins eight verses later, in verse 36 ("he sinneth not: let them marry"). Webb does not explain how the existence of similar instructions to the virgins in verse 36 proves that verse 28a was also addressed only to virgins. Nor does he explain how the two separate statements in verse 28, separated by the word "and," can both be addressing virgins. He will not admit that the "thou" of 28a and "a virgin" of 28b are two different people. Webb's understanding would make verse 28 read this way: "But if thou (a virgin) marry, thou (virgin) hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned."

Duty believes that Paul's instructions to "the married" in verses 10 & 11 were addressed to couples in a normal Christian marriage, where both spouses are believers. Unless one partner commits adultery, a Christian couple should not divorce. If verses 10 & 11 are not addressed to a marriage in which both spouses are Christians, then Paul's instructions would require a Christian woman to be reconciled to her unbelieving husband even if he were a convicted sex-perverted criminal.

Paul does not address those Christians married to unbelievers until verse 12. When Paul introduces verse 12 with the phrase "But to the rest," he is now addressing married couples in a different category, viz., a believer married to an unbeliever. (The Greek word translated "the rest" means "the other ones" or "the remaining ones," which would be different from the ones to whom he had just spoken in the previous two verses.)

Duty reminds us that many of the Corinthians were Gentiles who had converted from their pagan faith to the Messianic faith. Sometimes one spouse converted and the other did not. A situation like this had not been addressed in Jesus' teachings, because Jesus taught Jewish, not pagan, audiences. When Paul said, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord," he was not telling us that he was just giving his own personal opinion, mere advice that we can ignore if we want to. What Paul meant was this: "The Lord Jesus, in his earthly ministry, did not address this particular situation that many of you ('the rest of you') are in. Because He is not here in the flesh to speak to you about it, I am going to declare to you His will."

Paul's Spirit-inspired instructions to a believer married to an unbeliever are short and simple: 1) If the unbeliever wants to remain with the believing spouse, then let the unbeliever stay. 2) If the unbeliever wants to depart, let him/her depart. 3) If the unbeliever chooses to leave, a brother or sister is no longer in bondage in such cases. This seems clear enough, despite Webb's claim that this passage is "unclear" and "obscure."

Does this mean that a believer who has been deserted by an unbelieving spouse is free to remarry? "The whole question turns on the meaning of the words 'not under bondage,'" Duty writes. If the abandoned believer is not freed from bondage to the unbelieving ex-spouse, then what is it that the believer is freed from? If it is not the failed marriage to which the believer is no longer bound, then what is Paul talking about?

Webb gives no answer whatsoever. All he does is insist that it cannot mean that the abandoned believer is freed from the marriage, because this contradicts his no-dissolution/no-remarriage view. Webb says that the believer's only option is to wait for the unbelieving spouse to die or return. (Webb does not recognize the distinction between the two types of married couples Paul was addressing, the Christian couples and "the rest," i.e., the mixed marriages. Therefore he believes that the instructions to "remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband" refer to all situations.)

Duty asks: "Must the believer 'keep the door open' for the unbeliever to return at any time from the sex orgies of vice-ridden Corinth, to resume the 'one flesh' relationship with the believer? Paul answered with an emphatic NO. The marriage was dissolved ... What was it the divorced Christians were not in bondage to? By all the rules, there can be only one answer: they were no longer in bondage to the marriage."

It is significant that the Greek word used to describe a wife as "bound" to her husband for life (in Rom. 7:2 & 1 Cor. 7:39) is the very same Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 7:27: "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed." The same Greek word that in Romans 7:2 & 1 Corinthians 7:39 proclaims a wife "bound" to her husband for life, here is used to describe a married man who has the possibility of being "loosed" from his wife while his wife is still living. Why would Paul tell a married man to "seek not to be loosed" from his wife if the only possible way to be loosed is by death? Are we to suppose that Paul was telling Christian men to not murder their wives? This is the only way to understand the verse if nothing but death can loose a man from his wife.

Duty discusses the Greek terms bound and loosed, and concludes that Paul used "a decisive legal term that signified the complete liberation of a slave from his master, and the total and final release from the bondage of matrimony."

Duty writes: "If this evidence is not sufficient to convince a reasonable mind, then there is an end to all meaning in language and we must despair of ever proving anything."

•

It should be very obvious to readers by now that I find Duty's arguments far more convincing than Webb's. Webb asks that the reader "not judge this book by its literary excellence or scholastic profundity," and I am not doing that. However, when I see a book filled with an excessive amount of bold print, italics, underlined words, and exclamation marks (!), it makes me wonder why the writer feels that he must use so many means of emphasis so frequently. This style of writing reminds me of a person who continually shouts to make his point because he has no real evidence, a person who has no proof but a lot of passion. If a person has sound evidence, he only needs to use bold print, italics, exclamation marks, etc. for occasional clarification, or occasional emphasis, or for setting apart long quotations and foreign words. As the Queen of Denmark said in Shakespeare's Hamlet, "The lady [or in this case, the gentleman] doth protest too much, methinks."

In the forward, Webb writes: "This book will be appreciated by those whose first loyalty is to the Word of God, rather than traditions and doctrines of men." This statement reeks of a subtle attempt to manipulate and establish the reader's opinion even before any evidence is presented, because the implication of the statement is this: "If you disagree with this book that you are about to read, your first loyalty is to the traditions and doctrines of men, and not to the Word of God." This is an insult to thinking people.

The book has other problems. Webb continually quotes from the Living Bible, an unscholarly paraphrase based not on the Hebrew and Greek texts but on an English translation. Webb's lack of scholarship is evident in other ways. In his effort to prove that the marriages of unbelievers are valid (a fact that no one, to my knowledge, disputes), he wastes eight pages telling about unbelievers in the Bible who had "wives" and not just mere "women." "If God doesn't recognize unbelievers' marriages," he writes, "why didn't it say 'their women,' instead of 'their wives?'" (Emphasis Webb's) Although the legitimacy of unbelievers' marriages is not in dispute, what Webb does not know is that the Hebrew word for "wife" is the same as the word for "woman." Every single Old Testament example Webb gives uses the Hebrew word ishah, which can mean either "wife" or "woman."

Webb makes several statements which are inaccurate. He says that in Matthew 1 Joseph and Mary "were already 'one flesh'" before they had sexual relations, even though the phrase "one flesh" does not appear anywhere in Matthew chapter 1. He continually adds the phrases "for life," "till death," etc. when paraphrasing passages of Scripture, even though these phrases are neither stated nor implied in the texts that he paraphrases. He even adds to the words of Scripture when putting the words of Jesus in quotation marks. When talking about Deuteronomy 24, he writes: "It was cancelled when he said, 'they are no more twain but one flesh for life.'" (Emphasis Webb's) These words are presented in quotation marks as the words of Jesus, but Jesus did not say "for life." Webb added these words to the quote.

There are some statements in the book that are vague and do not make a lot of sense. When writing about Bible teachers who want to be sympathetic to new believers who experienced a divorce in their pre-Christian past, Webb says this: "These teachers should understand, that one cannot sympathize and minister at the same time, for sympathy is self-elevating, and therefore it is sin." (Emphasis Webb's)

Webb also makes sloppy, careless errors. He says that Samson (which he misspells as "Sampson") had sex with Delilah in Judges 16:1, although Delilah is not mentioned for the first time until later. (The "harlot" of 16:1 is not named in the Bible.) When discussing 2 Corinthians 5:17, he writes: "The word 'things' in the Greek, is in the perfect tense." I'm no Greek scholar, but I know that it is verbs, not nouns, that have tense. According to two Greek primers I have, nouns can have number, case, and gender, but there is nothing about tense. Verb tense is for verbs, not nouns.

I can overlook Webb's careless errors and his overuse of bold print and italics, but I cannot accept his doctrine as he presents it. Webb arrives at erroneous conclusions because he uses circular reasoning. He starts from the premise that all marriages are for life, and that there are absolutely no exceptions whatsoever that would allow a divorced person to remarry while the first spouse is living. Webb calls this belief his "clear, consistent premise from which to operate." (Emphasis Webb's) Any passages that mention exceptions to the general rule of marriage for life must therefore be interpreted in a way that will agree with Webb's premature conclusion that there are no exceptions.

We might illustrate this type of reasoning like this: Let us say we are searching for the truth about a particular doctrine, which we shall call doctrine x. We study a few passages of Scripture and we think we have learned the truth about doctrine x. Using an algebraic equation as an illustration, let us say that we have come to the conclusion that x = 4. This, then, becomes our premise, and colors any other Scriptures we might read in the future about doctrine x. If we happen to come across a Bible verse that clearly shows that x = 5, we say, "Wait a minute! We've already established the premise that x = 4, so this verse can't really mean that x = 5!" And so we look for a way to interpret it so that it doesn't contradict our premature assumption that x = 4.

This is exactly the way that Webb operates. When he comes to the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 ("except it be for fornication"), he says that fornication here cannot possibly mean adultery, because that idea "violates the obvious truth of our clear premise verses." (Emphasis Webb's)

If I seem to be too harsh on Webb's book, it is because of the seriousness of his error. As stated earlier, Webb's zeal for the purity of marriage is commendable. He does not want to "justify the wicked" who are truly living in adultery, and neither do I. However, we need to remember what Proverbs 17:15 says: "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to Yahweh." Condemning the just by calling them "adulterers and adulteresses" is abomination to Yahweh. Webb also teaches that Christians can be reconciled to their original mate even if that original mate remarried after the divorce, and this too is called "abomination before Yahweh" in Deuteronomy 24.

Guy Duty does his duty and presents the facts. Joseph Webb spins a web of error that would cause believers to commit abomination in the eyes of Yahweh by being reconciled to an ex-spouse who had remarried after the divorce.

Duty's book is far more convincing. Duty concludes that the "no remarriage/no exceptions" doctrine is "loaded with presumption" and "violates all sound rules of interpretation" and is "a doctrine of inconsistency." Duty writes, "The non-dissolution teaching must be rejected, not only for insufficient evidence, but for a total lack of it."

I agree whole-heartedly with Duty's statement. Does this mean that I am endorsing divorce and remarriage for believers? No. I am saying that marriage for life is the ideal and should be the expected norm, but if adultery occurs or if an unbelieving spouse departs, these are exceptions to the general rule, and the marriage can be dissolved, leaving the innocent spouse free to remarry. That is all.

Guy Duty was born in 1907 and died in 1977. The current publishers of his book ask that the information in the book be applied only within the narrow confines discussed in the book, and not be interpreted more broadly than Guy Duty would have intended. I would make the same request to readers of this book review/article I have written.

Home            Statement Of Beliefs           History Of The Messianic Logo

Our Pastor, Dr. Daniel Botkin            Where We Meet           

Teachings            Our Affiliation

Receive a FREE issue of the Botkin BiMonthly

Questions? Comments? Contact us at: Gates of Eden, P.O. Box 2257, East Peoria, IL 61611-0257

or call our resource center at (309) 497-0149