Galloway/Waters Debate

Galloway's First Rebuttal

Proposition: 
 Jesus' teachings in Matt 19:3-12 and 5:32 were in complete harmony 
with Moses' Law, which allowed for legal divorce.
Affirm:  Robert Waters
Deny:  Brian Galloway

Robert asked the following questions.  The answers are Galloway's

1. Was divorce allowed Under the Law of Moses (Deut24:1-4)? 

1. Yes.  Jesus acknowledged this in Matthew 19.  The Pharisees 
asked, "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement 
and to put her away?"  Notice Jesus' answer in verse 8.  "Moses 
for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: 
but from the beginning it hath not been so.

Two points to this.  First, the Pharisees tie divorce and the 
putting away as being part of the same procedure.  Second, Jesus 
recognized the Old Law allowed divorce, but contrasted that with 
what God said from the beginning.

2. Under the LOM, was divorce ever commanded in some situations? 

2. Yes.  In places such as Exodus 21:7-11, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, 
24:1-4, divorce seems to be allowed for the man who no longer 
finds delight in his wife.  This may be the basis of the 
Pharisees "for any reason" question in Matthew 19.  Divorce does 
not seem to be commanded in such passages, simply allowed.  In an 
entirely different context in Ezra 9 and 10, because the 
Israelites had entered into unlawful marriages, Jews with Pagans, 
then divorce was the only way to make things right with God.  In 
this case, the divorce was commanded.

3. Were the women (during O.T. times) that had been given a "bill 
of divorce" ever forbidden to remarry? 

3. Yes.  We know they could not remarry their former husband 
(Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  Beyond that they seemed to be allowed to 
marry and the marriage was not considered adultery (which would 
have been punished by death).

4. In the O.T., is there any implication that divorced women may 
be another man's wife? 

4. No, there are direct statements that they could remarry (Deut. 
24:1-4).  That's one of the things Jesus contrasted in his 
teaching on MDR.

5.Were the practices of the Pharisees (relating to Divorce and 
Remarriage), that Jesus called adultery, wrong before Jesus said it? 

5. There are several problems with this question.  We might ought 
to ascertain whether the Pharisees question was based on the Old 
Law or based on the teachings of some of the Rabbis.  The Old Law 
never stated for any reason, it stated if a man found disfavor.  
That's a reason.  The Pharisees asked for any reason.  If what 
the Pharisees were saying was indeed simply another way of saying 
what Moses said in the Old Law (which I think was the case), then 
it was not wrong to marry, divorce, and remarry.  But, it was not 
as God had intended, and it would be wrong when the Old Law was 
nailed to the cross and the new law came into being.  That much 
Paul underscores in 1 Corinthians 7.  But from Genesis 2 and 
Jesus' reference back to it compared to the Old Law, it would 
have been wrong under the Patriarchal Law.  So the answer to this 
part depends on how far back you want to go.

6. Does Jesus state that He is not going to change the Law until 
ALL be fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-19)? 

6. This depends on what you mean by change.   Matthew 5:17-19, 
Jesus said he would not destroy the law till all be fulfilled.  
The law ended at Christ's death.  The new law began at Christ's 
death.  But Jesus taught the new law prior to Christ's death.

Let me give you a current example of this, for you seem to have a 
difficult time with this concept.  On October 1, a new law goes 
into effect in the USA.  Then it will be illegal for 
telemarketers to call those who have put their number on a 'no 
call' list.  Currently it is legal for them to call those 
individuals.  Yet that new law is being 'taught' and advertised, 
and people are putting their name on the list in anticipation of 
that law.  Jesus was teaching his new law in anticipation of its 
beginning.

One other question.  If I love God and want to follow him, and 
Jesus said, yes the law says this (divorce if one does not find 
favor), but that has not been God's plan, what am I going to want 
to do?  Follow the law in spite of what God truly wants, or do 
what God truly want?  I'm going to want to follow God's real 
intent (not to divorce), which would not have put me in violation 
of the Old Law.

7. When was "all" fulfilled? 

7. At Christ's death, see #6 for complete answer.

8. Did Jesus establish his covenant, or law, before his death? 

8. He did not put it in force until his death,  but he taught it, 
readying the people and his disciples for this better law.

9. Did Christ's will take effect before his death? 

9. Christ's will is always in effect.  He is God.  The law of 
Christ did not take effect until his death (this is the same 
question as number 8), but he taught it prior to its taking 
effect, just as we teach laws today.

10. When does a "will" (which we know is the "law of Christ") 
take affect? 

10.  Affect is a feeling.  I think you meant effect.  Answered in 
8&9.  At death.  But the will is written and can be read prior to 
the death.  Jesus taught his new law prior to his death.

11. Can you have two laws in effect at the same time? 

11.  No, not if they are for the same people and one is to 
replace the other one. (Dealt with this in my first affirmation 
and you criticized me for dealing with it.  And now you are 
dealing with it.  Are you now to criticize yourself?)  But the 
second can be taught while the first is in effect in preparation 
and anticipation of the new law, just as is happening currently 
with the 'no call' law.

12. Did Jesus teach something that required action that was 
contrary to their law that was then in effect? 

12. While these laws contradicted the Old Law, they would not 
cause one to be in violation (in other words, the teaching was 
contrary, but the actions produced were not).  Since Jesus was 
not speaking in Matthew 19 of pagan/Jew marriages, then the 
marriages would not have to end in divorce.  For example, I am a 
Jesus believer in the first century considering divorcing my 
wife.  I listen to Jesus who tells me God's desire has always 
been for marriage to be for life (contrary to the Old Law which 
stated if a woman found disfavor, a husband could divorce her).  
I choose to remain married, because of Jesus' teaching.  Am I 
following Jesus?  Yes.  Have I violated the old law by staying 
married?  No.

13. If the answer to the above is yes, please endeavor to 
convince us why such is believable; since Jesus, in the same 
discourse, said He was not going to change the law until all is 
fulfilled? 


say change, he said destroy.

14. Under the O.T. would it have been transgression (sin) for a 
man to change the Law regarding who could marry? 

14. If he allowed marriage to those who were not allowed to 
marry, and he put that in effect immediately, yes.  But Jesus did 
not do either.  It would not have been a transgression for one to 
stay married to his wife.  So even if people followed Jesus 
immediately, while his teaching contradicted the Old Law (don't 
divorce vrs. You can divorce), one would not have sinned by 
remaining married in a God approved marriage.

15. Was Jesus a man (1Tim. 2:5)? 

15. Yes.  If you mean that he was in the flesh, subject to 
temptation and feelings of fleshly men.  But he was God while in 
the flesh.

16. Were the Jews taught that there would be a savior and that 
the "word of the Lord would go forth from Jerusalem"? Were John 
and Jesus authorized by the O.T. to teach the gospel? Could Jesus 
carry out His mission without sinning?  Did He transgress (disobey) any Law? 

16. Yes (The Old Testament taught such.  I'm not sure most Jews 
understood that. ).  Yes (even when contrary to the Old Law.  
This is one reason Jesus did not sin).  Yes.  No (Remember, 
teaching a new law does not transgress the old).

17. Did the Pharisees consider Jesus to be anything other than a 
man? 

17. Yes.  By John 11& 12, they could not deny his miracles.  They 
knew he was more than a man, but killed him anyway.  Peter 
touches on this in his sermon in Acts 2.

18. Did the Pharisees seek diligently to entrap Jesus in his 
words and to charge him with teaching against the Law of Moses? 

18.  Yes, but their problem was they did not understand the Old 
Law themselves, so did not know how to entrap him.  Remember 
also, they tried to find practices of Jesus which were contrary 
to the old law (healing on the sabbath).  That is not the same as 
teaching the new law.

19. Did the Pharisees charge Jesus with breaking the Law on any 
occasion and if so were they correct in doing so and charging Him 
with sin? 

19. Yes, no

20. Which is most reasonable?       
a) That Jesus contradicted (broke, transgressed, violated)  the 
Law under which he lived; or        
b) The Pharisees merely THOUGHT, or slanderously charged, that 
Jesus had contradicted the Law, when he actually did not? 

20. Neither a nor b.  c. That Jesus contracted the old law but 
did not violate it.  The Pharisees believed he violated their 
rendition of the old law, which was not from God.  This reminds 
me of the question, did you will your wife by drowning or by 
poison?  Neither choice is accurate.

21. Did the Pharisees make any sort of charge against Jesus that 
his teaching to them regarding "MDR" was contrary to the Law?  If 
so please provide the passage. 

21. Yes and no.  Yes, after Jesus gave God's plan for marriage 
(Matthew 19:6), they replied, "Why then did Moses command to give 
a bill of divorcement and to put her away."  Obviously, they are 
implying the charge that Jesus is not teaching according to the 
Old Law.  But if you are referring to after he finished, no, 
Jesus' reasoning was too sound.  This happened in many cases.  
Jesus spoke with authority, and the Pharisees had difficulty 
backing up their own beliefs with scriptures.  In this case, they 
were very much like Robert Waters.  In Matthew 22, they Jewish 
leaders ask him a number of questions that they did not agree 
with.  But they never charged him with teaching falsely, they 
just intensified their efforts to discredit him.

22. Please explain why the Pharisees did not charge Jesus with 
teaching contrary to the Law when He answered their questions 
regarding the controversial teachings that go back to Deut. 24:1-
4? 

22. see #21.

23. Why would Jesus consider it prudent to change the Law on 
Divorce and Remarriage while the Law of Moses was still in effect 
(which would have been viewed as transgression) since such, if 
God intended for it to be changed, could lawfully and properly be 
addressed by his apostles when teaching New Testament doctrine to 
New Testament subjects? 

23. First, changing the law would not have been viewed as a 
transgression.  Not unlawful to remain married instead of 
divorcing.  Second, Jesus did not have a public ministry after 
his death, when the new law came into effect.  In fact, it was 
the apostles who opened the term of the new law in Acts 2.  So it 
would have been very prudent for Jesus to teach his new law while 
on earth.  Jesus needed to teach to draw men to him, to give them 
the hope of salvation, and so the law of Christ would be based on 
Christ.  That's why Paul often refers back to Christ, concerning 
marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, concerning the Lord's supper in 1 
Corinthians 11:23.  Both teachings of Christ concerned the new 
law taught during the term of the old law.

24. Is it important to follow proper hermeneutics on all subjects 
- to include the rule that forbids construing one passage so as 
to contradict another (For example: Deut24:1-4 verses Matt. 
19:9), and the rule to consider the circumstances, such as to 
whom is being spoken and what law (or dispensation) was in effect 
at the time? 

24.  Yes it is important to follow proper hermeneutics.  Must 
include those passages in the Old Testament concerning the 
bringing of the new law by Christ. Since Jesus is the one who set 
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 against what he says in Matthew 19:1-10, and 
explains the reason for the contradiction, I would say that was 
proper hermeneutics. 

25. If one recognizes that it is untrue that Jesus contradicted 
Moses in his teachings on Divorce and Remarriage must they, if 
they follow rules of hermeneutics, conclude that Jesus did not 
teach against a divorced person marrying and therefore look for 
another logical conclusion?

25. That is a nonsensical question since Jesus did contrast the 
Old Law with what he taught in Matthew 19, and he did teach 
against a divorced person marrying.  "Moses for the hardness of 
heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning 
it hath not been so.  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put 
away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, 
committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put 
away committeth adultery."  Perhaps the real question is this.  
Since Jesus is so plain and specific in his teaching, will Robert 
recognize and follow what Jesus is saying, or will he continue to 
try to make Jesus say something he did not say.

Interesting questions Robert.  Some of them reveal your lack of 
understanding.  I hope you continue studying the Bible along with 
my responses so you can better rightly divide the word.  This 
will be my prayer this week.

Warmly
Brian Galloway