Biblical Inquiry on Divorce

[Myron]

On 4/26/2017 at 9:22 PM, Shane said:

I think it becomes an issue when a divorced person is not asked to serve at all by the nominating committee.  Or when the divorce person volunteers to help with a Sabbath school or Pathfinders but never receives a call.  It isn't such an issue in respect to the Pastors, Union or Conference officials.  The prejudice lies in the rank-in-file members sitting in the pews.  Those are the same members that sit on the nominating committees and decide who will be asked to serve.

 

 

 

Shane,

I refuse to let the leadership off on this matter.  Yes, the problem is worst among the rank and file, but who is responsible for teaching God's mind and his law to the rank and file?  They aren't doing their job.  This is a vicious cycle.  God gives us the leadership we deserve, and the rank and file follow the leaders they choose.  Remember, if you have ever studied this, that God chose Moses and Joshua, but when the militia was called up the rank and file were to elect their officers from among themselves.  (I can't find this law at the moment; I am not coming up with the right keywords to search this out.)  

When the rank and file is in rebellion against God in any way they are notoriously unable to choose fit and competent leadership, and besides, they would not want to anyway because "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."  2 Tim 4:3  What we really need is someone willing to break the cycle, and that really needs to be the local pastors.  The levels of leadership above this don't really have the desire, although it really is their job according to the hierarchy of spiritual gifts found in 1 Corinthians 12:27.  The pastors are the primary teachers of the people.  It is true that most of them really are too busy to study any of this stuff in great depth, but at the higher levels of authority everyone seems to be content to be administrators (the second lowest level of authority in this hierarchy), and have abdicated their responsibility in these matters.  Furthermore, when some of these things are forced on them they only go through the motions of doing the thorough investigation required by God's laws of judgment.

It is true that many of the pastors, and even higher level leadership have some understanding that there are problems with the doctrine as it is taught, but most remain completely ignorant about how to prove the problem, for whatever reason.  There are those who will not study it, there are those who will only study the "words of Jesus" even though these have been tampered with and are not really his words.  Paul does not have a lot to say about it, and even those few words have been tampered with to some extent, and because of the extreme lack of maturity in the church in Corinth, is necessarily given in an Old Covenant perspective because they were not yet able to understand the bigger picture.  Few will teach this from the law of Moses because they don't want to upset their congregations, who are more and more coming to believe these things from the law nailed to the cross perspective, a perspective we have always had to fight against, and because of Ellen White's two minds on the issue, have never been able to resolve.  Yes, the woman teaches at least two separate and at least partially conflicting views of this matter and neither one is in full agreement with scripture.

Finally, there is the matter of idols of the heart.  We love our idols, and I've never met anyone still fully within the denomination who even knows about Ezekiel 14:1-11, much less is willing to accept this definition of idols and start casting down those false gods.  The people are for the most part in no position to learn this stuff, and if their pastors won't put forth the effort first to learn it, then to teach it to their flocks nothing will change, and this is where the blame really lies on that issue.  

Yes the greatest apparent problem is with the rank and file in the pews, but who is it that allows them to remain so judgmental and anti-scriptural?  Who is it that taught them these anti-scriptural views in the first place for the lifers, and did not properly or adequately correct the converts?  The clergy is not without blame.

[Gregory Matthews]

In an earlier post, Myron said in the quote below:

*  Myron, seems to have used Strong for his source of information.  I believe that Young gives slightly different numbers, but that is not the  major point of my focus in this post.  So, I will not further cite numbers.  However, I do believe that there may be other Hebrew words that should be considered:

*  The Hebrew phrase esheth ish  has been translated as adulteress in Proverbs 6:26. 

*  The Hebrew word naaphuphim has been translated as adulteries in Hosea 2:2.

*  The Hebrew word niuphim has been translated as adulteries in Jeremiah 13:27 and in Ezekiel 23:43.

*  In his appeal to Strong, Myron seems to have relied on Strong word 5003.  I will suggest that Myron seems to have ignored Strong words 5004 and 5005.

 

Quote

This is one of the few words in scripture that can be examined in a rather straightforward manner because there is only one Hebrew word translated as adultery, and four Greek words translated as such, all four of which are either the root or derived from that root -- essentially a single word.  The Hebrew na'aph appears 31 times and is translated in the following manner:  adultery (17x), adulterer (8x), adulteress (4x), adulterous (1x), women that break wedlock (1x). 

 

[GayatfootofCross]

On 4/30/2017 at 5:17 AM, Myron said:

Shane, 

  Wanderer has an idol. 

I just cant contain myself any longer!

It has been bubbling over for a day and a half now.

I must say something even at the risk of being off topic! ...It might even get me banned from this place but I gotta!

Myron, you have an idol too!

And it's bigger and I must say more ornate too boot with a daily fresh wreath of flowers at the pedestal and a goat head errr ..something.

The reason I why I know this is cause I have the Gift of Discernment too! Hey cool!

In a few words on any given topic I can see it all before me! The Stranger on the other side of the computer screen (or in The Wanderer's case a Samsung 300 Ultra High Five Space Star Cell thingy ma Jingy- Yes I can see that too)

We discerners Gotta Stick together!

We are more powerful that way!

We should combine our Wonder Twin Powers for the betterment of this whole  Forum.

That would be neato!

Keep out the riffraff I say!

Wish you Well Myron

 

 

[Dr. Shane]

11 hours ago, Myron said:

I don't think that is what Jesus was trying to say and I have yet to find a Bible scholar that can show me it was.

It is not what Jesus was trying to say.  Have you read Dr. Jones book yet?  I will link to it again here.  http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/the-bible-says-divorce-and-remarriage-is-not-adultery/chapter-1/.  Jesus was telling these people that following the normal Babylonian practice of only giving verbal notice of divorce and refusing to give the writ of divorce as God's law required caused anyone who remarried to be living in adultery according to God's law.  Jesus did not speak about grounds for divorce in Matthew 5, and I doubt he did in the other passage of Matthew where he spoke of this, Matthew 19:9 which is the same discussion addressed in the other Gospels.  Only the Gospels make this statement; it is not found anywhere else in scripture.

Dr. Jones offers a third way to interpret these passages.  It is quite interesting.

First, in context, Jones believe Jesus was teaching that divorce needs to be done with a certificate of divorce which was not required by Hammurabi law.  

Second, Jones proposes the adultery exception is not justification for divorce but rather a justification for divorce without a divorce certificate.  He, he interprets the Greek word used not as adultery but rather as fornication.  Thus, the relationship is not a marriage recognized by God.  It may be the result of prostitution, incest or marriage to an unbeliever.  In those cases, since the marriage is not legitimate, no formal certificate of divorce needs to be issued.

I do not know the original languages well enough to argue for or against this interpretation.  However this is a third way of interpreting it.  The first way to interpret it is the way Protestants, including the Adventist church, do.  The second way is as I suggested in the original post on this thread.  

Dr. Jones also dances around the passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 7.  One needs to be better versed in Greek than I am to be able to agree with or criticize his view there.

Just from what I know, of the three ways to interpret the passages from Jesus, the historical Protestant understanding is the weakest.

[Myron]

5 hours ago, Shane said:

Dr. Jones offers a third way to interpret these passages.  It is quite interesting.

First, in context, Jones believe Jesus was teaching that divorce needs to be done with a certificate of divorce which was not required by Hammurabi law.  

 

 

 

You and I have already discussed the law that requires the writ of divorce, although we talked about another aspect of that law.  Perhaps it would be good to look at it again.

Quote

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, ² and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, ³ and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, ⁴ then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.  Dt 24:1-4

 

Upon rereading this statute I see something in verse 1 that should have been brought up long ago, but which no one has yet mentioned.  Because of the way I presented the information in the first long post it should have been included there, but I only skimmed over the passage to see how much I needed to include, and did not actually read it for meaning.  That will be another post, however.

The NIV translation here weakens this command somewhat, making it sound like writing a letter of divorce is optional. Even the KJV, "let him write her a bill of divorcement," also weakens this and makes it sound a little like the certificate of divorce is optional.  Then again, I have looked into the late middle English and early modern English meaning of the word let, and it did have a very different meaning then than it does now.  I don't recall the precise meaning, but it is more like a command than a statement to allow.  There are always problems in doing word studies when you don't know what the word meant at the time it was written; what the word meant to the author or translator is much more important than what it means to me.

The Hebrew here simply says write it.  There seems to be no imperative or command in the connotation of this word; it is used most often in scripture as writing a letter, or write down these words I tell you.  As Dr. Jones points out in that booklet, if the wife has no physical witness from her husband, such as a letter saying, "I have divorced you," and her husband later changes his mind, or has malicious intent toward her, he can then publicly accuse her of adultery, and have both her and her new husband stoned to death.  I think I would want proof.

The law appears to only demand the husband's word to be written down, but since the law of witnesses requires two witnesses to establish any fact (Dt 17:6, 19:15, Gn 41:25, 32) it can be assumed that the law requires this document to be witnessed, otherwise it would be a single witness and not enough to firmly establish before a judge that she is divorced.  

Most sins are considered by God's laws to be private matters, but some are defined by statute to be public matters.  Adultery is one of these because it is a capital crime, and for that reason, I don't give much credit to the protestation of several people here that it is no one else's business, with the exceptions already mentioned previous posts.  Forgiveness always removes any sin from the public domain, whether the forgiveness comes as a result of the restitution being paid in full, or as a result of the victim exercising his/her right to forgive.

Quote

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.  Lev 20:10

 

Quote

² If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, ³ and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, ⁴ and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, ⁵ take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.⁶ On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. ⁷ The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.

1

So, the writ of divorce is an absolute necessity.  A woman living with a new husband without it risks both her life and his.  I've never studied the matter, but I have heard that when Judah returned from Babylon it was their practice to follow Babylonian law in the matter of divorce, and there were probably very many women in Judah and Gallilee in that day who were living in adultery because their former husbands had not followed God's law in this matter.  Personally, I doubt it because of how careful the Pharisees were with every little detail of the law, but it is a possibility.

5 hours ago, Shane said:

Second, Jones proposes the adultery exception is not justification for divorce but rather a justification for divorce without a divorce certificate.  He, he interprets the Greek word used not as adultery but rather as fornication.  Thus, the relationship is not a marriage recognized by God.  It may be the result of prostitution, incest or marriage to an unbeliever.  In those cases, since the marriage is not legitimate, no formal certificate of divorce needs to be issued.

 

 

 

No, you seem to have missed something here.  Adultery was the result of not having a written, and probably witnessed, certificate of divorce since the wife could not prove she was divorced without it unless her husband would come into court on her behalf and state under oath that he had divorced her.  Since only the husband has the right to formally charge her in that same court with adultery, that would not be very likely in a court that is following God's law.

The marriage is recognized by as marriage, according to the definition given by Paul in 1 Cor 7, but it is not a legal marriage.  There is a difference.  And yes, because it is not a legal, marriage, and more important, legally documented, there is no need for a divorce certificate.

There is no provision made in God's revealed law requiring a marriage ceremony, or to have the marriage publicly recorded in any way, but this was the actual practice.  In this booklet and one other, probably either Judgments of the Divine Law or God's law on Restitution, Dr. Jones speaks of the law of Hammurabi being the law of the land in those days, and that rather than being a comprehensive code, the laws given from the top of Mt. Sinai appear to be only corrections to Hammurabi's code.  Perhaps this is true.  I don't know if that code requires a public documentation of the marriage.  If so, perhaps we can say those illicit marriages do not require a certificate of divorce, not because they are illicit, but because they were never publicly recorded.  More information is needed before we can state anything definite about it.

 

5 hours ago, Shane said:

Dr. Jones also dances around the passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 7.  One needs to be better versed in Greek than I am to be able to agree with or criticize his view there.

 

 

 

I have not read this booklet in a few years and do not remember precisely what Dr. Jones says that you might consider him to be dancing around this subject.  I can say that this is a rather difficult passage on a number of levels because it is really not characteristic of most of Paul's writings.  In fact, much of the book seems uncharacteristic of Paul's writings, even more than Hebrews is.  Most of Christianity teaches that Paul is teaching the law has been put away.  That is their own idol of the heart twisting Paul's word for their selfish benefit because at every turn Paul upholds the law.  However, Paul spends a considerable amount of time teaching us the same thing Jesus did in the sermon on the mount, the spiritual form of the law is the form that really counts, as it is reality and the carnal form given to Moses on the mount is only shadows.  He also stresses that neither form can save us because it can only show us what sin is; we must rely on the sacrifice of Jesus for our salvation.  Yet here, and indeed, several other passages in this letter he seems to push us into the law in an uncharacteristically strong way, and moreover, into the carnal form of the law rather than the spiritual form.  If you do not know the law well or at all, as is the case with most Christians you cannot understand what Paul is doing here, and it won't matter how well you know Greek or Hebrew (don't forget that Paul was a Hebrew lawyer and is talking Hebrew law, even though he is writing in Greek.)

Also for some of this Paul is putting forth his own opinion.  There are only three places where he specifically states that it is his opinion, not God's revelation, but I have often wondered if there are a few other statements in this chapter that qualify as such, or if it is just the limitations of my own understanding of the law on these matters.  Many have insisted to me that Paul's opinion here has the same force as God's word simply because it was put in the Bible.  Not so fast here.  If it was so important for Paul to stress so explicitly that God had not made any revelation to him in this matter we should never be trying to say this is God's word under any circumstance, and it does not matter that this was not edited out when this book was placed in the canon by men long after Paul's death.  God's revelation comes in many forms, and I certainly do not discount the possibility of direct revelation, but since Dt 13 says that the test of all new revelation is that it matches and agrees with old revelation, especially the law given to Moses, and in Ex 19:9 God tells Moses he spoke to him so publicly so that the people would trust that it really was God's word Moses was giving them, we will find some form of corroboration of any true revelation in that law.

Most of what Paul says here can be found in the law in some way and he is most specifically speaking of the laws of covering in much of this chapter.  I don't know how familiar you are with 19th Century Mormon doctrine concerning polygamy.  The primary reason they did this (from the fig-leaf perspective -- I actually believe lust was the primary reason), was because a woman cannot be saved on her own, but only through her husband.  From an overly narrow interpretation of the law of Moses, you can make an extremely strong biblical case for this belief.  Bond wives and children are saved under the covering of the head of the household; they are under his covering, therefore, they get their salvation through him.  You and I know there is much more involved here, but they are right, these laws do exist, and the interpretation is not entirely invalid.  However, this does not apply to free women in any way, shape or form; they can and must be saved separate from their husbands or they are not free, and we know from the law of Zelophahad's daughters that their husband and children are under her covering, not his.

All that being said, I do have a few problems with this chapter.  In verses 10 and 11 even though Paul says this is God's counsel I question whether there has been tampering by man because it does not match the law.  Even though Paul says his advice in verses 13-16 is his, and not God's, I am in full agreement with it because it meets the demands of the laws of covering.  Verses 17 to 24 are also based on the laws of covering/authority, so I agree with them as well.  Paul is not explicit as to whether he is still stating his own opinion or has returned to speaking God's revelation.  In verses 25-38 Paul gives a direct contradiction to the counsel he later gave to the Thessalonians in 2 Thessalonians 2.  Both here, and in 1 Thessalonians Paul appears to believe that the second coming will happen very soon, maybe even in his lifetime.  In 2 Thessalonians it is clear that God has made some further revelation of the little horn and the timing of its work, and is well aware himself that it will be a very long time before Jesus returns.  He speaks nothing of the specific prophecy nor its timing here, only that the workings of this power can already be seen behind the scenes, but it has not yet been revealed for all to see.  Paul was, or should have been aware that this power was to reign over the church for nearly 1300 years, even if he did not know that it would be another 300+ years before it would be revealed, and he broke the news of the longer wait to the Thessalonians as gently as he could.  

I have many times heard it said that the advice against idleness in 2Thessalonians 3 includes the advice to marry, have children and live life as if Jesus was not returning soon.  The closest language to that is in chapter 2, but still does not contradict the latter part of 1 Cor 7 as openly and completely as is often claimed.  However, I must agree that based on other counsel Paul gave later in life it is highly unlikely that he would have given this particular counsel had he not believed the second coming would occur in less than 100 years.

This is my take on this chapter and the reasons for my understanding.  Since you did not raise specific issues from Dr. Jones discussion on the passage I will not make any assumptions on what your concerns are, much less try to answer those concerns.

[Dr. Shane]

The passage in Matthew 5 refers to adultery in two contexts.  The first is that if a man divorces his wife, he causes her to commit adultery.  The other context is what we call the exception clause.  If a man divorces his wife "except for adultery" he causes her to commit adultery.  Here, Dr. Jones is saying the exception clause should be interpreted as fornication.  A paraphrase would be "If a man divorces his wife without giving her a certificate, he causes her to commit adultery, unless the relationship itself was a product for fornication."  Such example of fornication are incest, prostitution or marriage with an unbeliever.

[Myron]

9 hours ago, Shane said:

The passage in Matthew 5 refers to adultery in two contexts.  The first is that if a man divorces his wife, he causes her to commit adultery.  The other context is what we call the exception clause.  If a man divorces his wife "except for adultery" he causes her to commit adultery.  Here, Dr. Jones is saying the exception clause should be interpreted as fornication.  A paraphrase would be "If a man divorces his wife without giving her a certificate, he causes her to commit adultery, unless the relationship itself was a product for fornication."  Such example of fornication are incest, prostitution or marriage with an unbeliever.

 

 

 

 

 

Shane,

I assume you raise this in answer to my statement that you didn't express specific problems with Dr. Jones application of his interpretation of Matthew 5 to 1 Corinthians 7, so I will answer according to that assumption.

As I have said before, the church is very loose in their definitions of adultery and fornication, but we must remember that Paul is writing as an attorney here.  He was trained as a lawyer and a theologian (in those days there was no difference between the two because the theologians understood that God is a king sitting in his throne at his bench acting as the supreme judge in the land.  Where we have a nine-judge panel they had the high priest at the temporal level (Dt 17) and God himself, on the spiritual level.  Any priest was a higher level judge than a civil judge, who could be as lowly as the captain over 10 or as high as the captain over 10,000 (Exodus 18), and the high priest was by statute the highest authority on earth under God, but we see that in actual practice an apostle like Moses was between God and the high priest (Numbers 12:6-9, 1 Corinthians 12:27 which is a hierarchy. Moses was higher than a prophet and the only office higher is that of apostle.  Moses was an apostle by biblical definition.) Later, under Eli, when because of the corruption of the priests, the curse on the priesthood was that it would lose its arm (strength) the office of prophet was removed from the priesthood and placed directly under God's authority, therefore the Prophet is at least equal to the high priest if not in authority over the high priest. (This points out another major problem with Ellen White, who made herself less than a prophet because she submitted to the priesthood, going so far as allowing herself to be ordained by them, instead of sitting in judgment over them as God has intended since the days of Eli.  Also, when she defined herself as "more than a prophet" she specifically stated her duties as a special messenger from God (the biblical definition of a prophet -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19 -- and as a teacher, an office of lower authority than a prophet (1 Corinthians 12:27) and even lower than that of priest [pastor and evangelist] (Ephesians 4:11).  By her definitions and actions she made herself less than a prophet.)

So, we have all these various levels of Judge before which the attorneys argue their case.  The judge knows that his primary responsibility is to teach the law to the attorneys and the people, and enforcement is a secondary responsibility.  The attorneys know that they cannot come before the judge and argue, "I think this means..." when the law gives a very specific definition located somewhere within the statutes and codes themselves or lacking that, further defined and refined in the body of case law, which is the written record of all court decisions, most especially those at the appellate levels.  The attorney, back then and today, has to be very specific.  Modern theologians and laypeople, on the other hand, are more than willing to be very loose minded in their definitions, their uses of specifically defined legal terms, and even whether any of this is the law or simply a pretty good idea.  

In John 10 Jesus defined for us what we should consider law to be when he said,  “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? John 10:34-36.  He was quoting Psalm 82:6 and he called it their law.  Moreover, these people, unlike modern Christians, did not "correct" him in this matter, because they already believed all of the scriptures to be God's law. Then again, go look at that definition of the prophet I referred to earlier.   I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, Dt 18:19.  If God is going to be calling us to account for our obedience or lack thereof to any word he speaks through a prophet isn't that word law?  And yet, modern Christians, theologians and lay people alike believe their opinions should be held equal to or above the law of God.  Dr. Jones summarizes the issue as, "Every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God is law."

Any attorney who comes into court on that basis whether to act as the prosecuting attorney or attorney for the plaintiff (the satan in that courtroom) or as a defense attorney (the paraclete in that courtroom) would be laughed out of court by the judges.  The attorney who actually knows the law will win every time, even if the merits of the other side of the case are stronger.  If you cannot argue the law in that court and the opposing side can, you lose.  PERIOD.  And every time you step (or kneel) before the throne in prayer you are in a courtroom addressing a judge!  This is why so many prayers of Christians end up with an answer they do not like and they claim God did not answer their prayer.  He very clearly answered, but he did not rule in favor of the lawless (iniquitous) petitioner, and you can almost certainly count on the presence of an opposing attorney in that courtroom, an attorney who knows the law of God better than we do, (James 2:19.)

(Meditation, which is also prayer, and what Paul refers to when he says, "Pray without ceasing," is a different matter.  You are not approaching God as a judge, but rather as a father, a teacher, a mentor, even as a friend and having a discussion about what the law means.  It is only when you make a petition -- ask for something -- that you have approached God as a judge.  Unfortunately, this is the only relationship most Christians (most SDAs included) have with God and they actively exclude them from the rest of their lives.)

So, in 1 Corinthians 7 we have the words of an attorney, even a judge/teacher of the law of the highest order on earth, the apostle speaking about very specifically defined legal matters, but we are hampered first by our own inability to be so precise, and our lack of willingness (with most Christians) to even look for the proper and precise definitions of Paul's legal terminology and secondly by the same lack of understanding in the translators, many of whom have been more than willing to actively mistranslate the scriptures, and the remainder of whom (probably, but not definitely the majority) who mistranslate due to their lack of understanding.  Finally, we are hampered by our lack of personal knowledge of the original languages, so we cannot be certain of what we are seeing there even when we use such fine resources as lexicons and concordances.  What do we do?  There is a lot of guesswork here, but we do the best we can.

The very first thing we must do is properly define the terms adultery and fornication.  The definition of adultery is very specific.  It occurs only when a married woman has sexual relations with a man who is not her husband or when a man has sexual relations with another man's wife.  There is no other definition in scripture on the physical/fleshly level, but for the moment, I intend to limit us to that level since this is what Paul was speaking of in 1 Corinthians 7.  Because of the nature of God's law we cannot help but get into the spiritual expansion of these definitions, but I intend to keep that to a minimum.  All other forms of illicit sexual contact are fornication.  Secondly, we need to define marriage, since it is part of the definition of divorce.

Of course, the first place anyone goes with this is Genesis 2:24, but this is a rather vague passage.  All it does is tell us that by being married two people become one flesh.  Matthew 19 and Mark 10 present two different perspectives of a single teaching of Jesus.  There are no significant differences between these two accounts, especially the public portion of the discussion.  There is some difference in the accounts of the private discussion afterward with his disciples, but they do not contradict each other.  Here Jesus quotes Genesis 2 but still does not define what "one flesh" means.  

In Ephesians 5:31 Paul makes reference to this passage but does not define the term.  Because of the way he speaks about love in the marriage relationship this passage should probably be studied as being demonstrating a proper biblical grounds for divorce, but because there is no explicit statement that this would be grounds for divorce, and because it is not adultery in the sense that most church people are willing to consider, I can assure you they will not be open to such examination.

Only in 1 Corinthians 6:16 do we find any definition of that term.  

Quote

¹⁵ Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! ¹⁶ Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”¹⁷ But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

 

Here we see "one flesh" defined.  Here we also see that by bringing an unbeliever into the body of Christ through marriage, legitimate or otherwise, we are committing adultery against that body.  We cannot make that statement as absolute as many do because through the redemption laws such marriages are made legitimate for the body of Christ, but the idea behind such marriages is to redeem the "wife" from sin and eventually restore "her" to full citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven which is "her" birthright from Adam's creation.  It appears that according to God's law this is the only thing necessary for there to be a legal marriage since nowhere in God's law is there a requirement for a public ceremony or the registration of a marriage contract.  I am told that some Jewish sects consider this to be so important that at some time during the marriage celebration they require the couple to go into a room to consummate the marriage, and they post a witness outside the door to listen and make sure they actually do the deed.

Based on this, I do not fully agree with Dr. Jones' assessment that in cases of illicit "marriage" it is only necessary to end the relationship.  If there were some statute requiring the public ceremony or certificate I could fully agree with his assessment; since there is no such statute in scripture I can only say the matter is questionable at best and it is more likely even these relationships would need a certificate of divorce to meet the requirements of God's law.

Unless you include this definition in your interpretation of what Paul said immediately after giving us this definition (chapter 7), you have no basis for understanding what he says in that chapter.  Yesterday I wrote that post while I was reviewing chapter7, but I had not reviewed chapter 6.  I knew the definition of marriage given here had to be considered, and the spirit told me more than once to do a study of this passage.  I intended to include it directly after where that post ended, but I had forgotten about it until about an hour after I posted that study and I was already working on something else.  This information includes some details I had forgotten over the years.  Therefore, this passage should have been reviewed and included in the study FIRST.  It does change my assessments of the information in that chapter somewhat.

While based on what I present here I can only give a qualified agreement with Dr. Jones I do find your paraphrase of his position to be very accurate, and without more specific information concerning the requirement (or lack thereof) for a public ceremony or official documentation of the existence of the marriage I cannot disagree with this view from a legal perspective.  Anything further that I can present will only be personal opinion or speculation, and have no more expectation that it would be considered information of value than the opinions of others who I have criticized for their lack of any proof.