Galloway/Waters Debate

Waters' Second Affirmative

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

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

RW:
First, that the Pharisees understood what Moses actually 
commanded ("bill of divorce" along with the "putting away", 
rather than just the "putting away") gives no support to the idea 
that Jesus changed what God had commanded through Moses.  

On the second point, Jesus contrasted what Moses "suffered" or 
"allowed" with what God had said from the beginning.  God did not 
change His mind regarding what was his ideal from the beginning.  
It was because of "hardness of heart" that Moses did not enforce 
the Law (Deut24:1-4), which commanded the "bill of divorcement".  
The contrast was not that God made a law (at the beginning), 
changed it and then changed it again.  Such an idea has God being 
indecisive and changeable (fickle). 

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

RW:
First, it is good that Brian is able to see that God did command 
divorce, but it is sad that his only explanation for it is that 
God made a mistake in his Law on divorce and that Jesus changed 
it before he could have done so without sin.  

Second, Brian's answer is not in harmony with the facts.  In the 
case where the marriages were "unlawful marriages", as in the 
example Brian gave (Ezra), the men merely "put away" their 
wives.  However, in the case where the marriages were lawful the 
command was to "give a bill of divorcement".  Now, let it be 
understood that God was not commanding faithful men to divorce 
their wives for any trivial thing.  The command was to men who 
were intent on getting rid of their wives, and it was in such 
cases that God commanded the certificate, which would free the 
woman to "go be another man's wife".  The mere "putting away" 
without the certificate left the woman still married and subject 
to being punished for adultery if caught with another man.  And, 
as was evidently the case with the Pharisees, to whom Jesus 
spoke, marrying another after the mere "putting away" resulted in 
adultery.  The exception Jesus gave, "except it be for 
fornication", was simply an unlawful marriage, just as in the 
example Brian has given.  It required no divorce before marrying 
another.  For example, if Joe gets married and it comes to his 
knowledge that he has married his blood sister who was adopted 
into another family as an infant, then he does not need a 
divorce. He just needs to "put her away", which will stop the 
fornication, and, according to the "exception clause", he can 
marry another.

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

Brian wrote: 
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? 

Brian wrote: 
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.  

RW:
Brian go further than to admit that there is the implication that 
divorced persons may marry.  He says, "There are direct 
statements".  On this point we agree.  Where we differ is on the 
idea that God changed his mind on this matter and had Jesus to 
implement this new law BEFORE the death of Christ.  I maintain 
that Brian misunderstands Jesus' teachings and that there is 
consistency in God's word regarding the allowing of divorced 
persons to marry.  The apostle Paul wrote: (1Co 7:8) "I say 
therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if 
they abide even as I.   But if they cannot contain, let them 
marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."  Only those who 
are determined to defend tradition argue that "unmarried" does 
not include one who is divorced and no longer married.  Regarding 
the divorced today, some argue they are still married to their 
previous spouse.  Then there are others who see that divorce ends 
the marriage but they argue that although one is "unmarried" they 
are "ineligible" for marriage because Jesus said they commit 
adultery.  Now how does one commit adultery against a spouse 
(Mark 10:11) to whom they are not married?  They then argue that 
it is "in God's eyes", which proves nothing.  Moses did not 
forbid marriage for divorced people, Jesus did not forbid 
marriage for divorced people and the apostle Paul said such a 
doctrine was "doctrines of devils" (1Tim4:1-3).  Thus, God has 
been consistent.  Brian is like the Pharisees who misunderstood 
the scriptures and made the wrong application to various 
passages.

5. Were the practices of the Pharisees (relating to Divorce and 
Remarriage), that Jesus called adultery, wrong before Jesus said 
it? 
Brian wrote: 
5. There are several problems with this question. We 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. 

RW:
Isn't it strange that Brian finds "several problems with this 
question", but fails to address the real problem that it presents 
for his doctrine?  I'm going to show what the problem is, and it 
will be crystal clear why Brian has such problems with the 
question.  He has actually made a great effort to answer 
consistent with his thinking and his doctrine. But his 
misunderstanding regarding "put away" and "divorce" is keeping 
him from having a foundation for understanding.

First, the answer is obviously "yes" because the Pharisees were 
"putting away" their wives and marrying another, which Jesus said 
is adultery.  

Then Brian wrote: 
 “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."

RW:
In this debate, Brian is denying that Jesus' teaching to the 
Pharisees is in harmony with the Law.  Yet, he is now forced to 
admit that what he thinks Jesus taught would only be "wrong when 
the Old Law was nailed to the cross and the new law came into 
being".  Thus, to accept the proposition he previously affirmed 
we would have to accept that Jesus taught some "truth" that was 
not true when he said it.  If it was true when he said it then it 
would at that moment be applicable to those who heard.  The 
prudent position here is that what Jesus said was true, but that 
Brian's idea of what Jesus said is error.  

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

RW:
Brian states, "The law ended at Christ's death. The new law began 
at Christ's death".  But for Brian to be seen as successful in 
denying the proposition I'm affirming it has to be accepted that 
the New Testament actually began back when Jesus changed the Old 
Law.  But I suppose Brian would say the changes were limited to 
certain things, which would actually be instances where the Jews 
sought to get him to do that very thing – making him contradict 
his statement as recorded in Matt5:17-19.  Brian asserts that 
Jesus taught the new law prior his death.  This was discussed 
fully in the previous discussion where Brian was in the 
affirmative, but he was not able to present a single "But I say 
unto you" passage that was not seen to be anything more than the 
Pharisees' false charges regarding what Moses had actually said.

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
The above is a brilliant display of equivocation.  The problem 
with Brian's example is that there is no person of authority who 
is going around telling the telemarketers that they are sinning 
by making the calls they have been making.  Brian's 
interpretation of Jesus' teachings is that He made new law when 
he said what is recorded in Matt19:9.  I contend that Jesus did 
not and could not have made new law without transgressing the 
Law.  To the contrary, what He taught was in complete harmony 
with the law under which He lived and which He was expected to 
respect and obey.  To fail to do so would be tantamount to 
transgression and would be sin.  That he lived a sinless life is 
the basis for Jesus being the perfect sacrifice.  Brian's 
proposition can only be affirmed by proving that Jesus sinned.  
Who is willing to accept such a consequence to Brian's 
"understand" of Jesus teachings?

7. When was "all" fulfilled? 

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

RW:
Good answer.  But Brian's problem is that Jesus said, "Not one 
jot or tittle shall pass from the Law till all be fulfilled," and 
he has Jesus changing the Law and telling the people living under 
it that they are sinning according against God by breaking the 
new law, which had not yet come into effect.  

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

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
So, are we to believe that Jesus changed the law and told the 
Pharisees they were sinning, but that His words had no force at 
the time?  Please explain.

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

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
Again, Brian has Jesus changing the Law before the lawful time. 
For the time being, I'm assuming that Brian is claiming that 
Jesus just taught his "new law" on MDR but what He taught was not 
authoritative at the time and the transgressors could obey if 
they wanted to, but if they didn't that was fine.  [There will be 
some further questions regarding this point because Brian seems 
to be vacillating here.] 

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

Brian wrote: 
10.  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. 

RW:
The WILL was in the mind of the H.S. but was written by the 
apostles after Jesus death.  After stating, "I will build my 
church", Jesus said to His apostles: (Mt 16:19) "And I will give 
unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou 
shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou 
shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  Thus, it is 
clear that the apostles were the ones to do any teaching that was 
new law and "binding" on the hearers.

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

Brian wrote: 
11.  No, not if they are for the same people and one is to 
replace the other one. 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. 

RW:
Brian has to see that there is a problem with his assertion that 
Jesus changed the Law on certain things before his death.  
Obviously, if Jesus changed the laws before His death then the 
Laws He changed were in conflict with the previous Law, which is 
a concept that Brian seeks to affirm.  Brian says you cannot have 
two laws in effect at the same time.  Therefore, his admitting 
this fact is a blow to his own position and a "thumbs up" to 
mine.  Brian has Jesus making a new law that changed the old one, 
but it was not in effect, which means no one had to obey it 
unless they wanted to.  Perhaps that explains why the Jews did 
not make a charge against Jesus for changing the Law – they 
understood, as does Brian, that they did not have to end their 
adulterous marriages until Christ's death.

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

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
Brian had an answer that sounded pretty good, but he did not deal 
with the real problem that I posed for him and his position.  
Brian cleverly evaded the question by dealing with a "non-action" 
matter, applicable to those who would volunteer to comply.  The 
real problem, which I cannot believe Brian has not seen, is the 
question regarding the marriages that, if Brian is correct, 
suddenly became "unscriptural", i.e., adulterous.  You see, if 
Brian's doctrine is true then marriages that were scriptural 
became unscriptural at the point that Jesus spoke the words that 
Brian contends amounted to a change of the Law.  Of course, he 
also has been forced to admit that the Law was not changed until 
the death of Christ and that two laws cannot be in effect at the 
same time.  These acknowledgments destroy his position and 
sustain mine.

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? 

Brian wrote: 
13. The answer to 12 is no, not yes.  Besides which Jesus did not 
say change, he said destroy. 

RW:
Actually, Jesus was speaking of the Law not passing until "all be 
fulfilled" at His death, which was when it was "changed".  Who 
can deny it?  

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

Brian wrote: 
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.  

RW:
I want to first ask, what passage in the O.T. forbad anyone from 
having a marriage?

Again, Brian evades the question.  The real problems are the 
cases where people's marriages all of a sudden become adulterous, 
according to Brian's idea of what Jesus said.  It is interesting 
that Brian said Jesus did not change the Law regarding who has a 
right to have a spouse or marriage.  I thought that was what he 
was affirming in the previous discussion and asserts throughout 
his reply to my first affirmative.  In response to my question 
pertaining to changing the Law regarding who could marry, Brian 
said, "But Jesus did not do either." Brian, are you flip-
flopping?  Are you now saying Jesus did not change the Law?  You 
can't have it both ways.  

I don't think there is anything to gain by showing that someone 
is incompetent, and I surely do not think such of Brian, but it 
is evident that he has become frustrated and confused.  Such is 
typical of those who have been deceived into believing error and 
trying to defend it.

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? 

Brian wrote: 
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). 

RW:
Let us begin here by first looking at some definitions and at a 
passage of scripture: Transgression: "a crime or any act that 
violates a law, command, or moral code" "an act or the process of 
overstepping a limit" Encarta Dictionary

Strong: [Grk. 458] anomia (an-om-ee'-ah)from 459; illegality, 
i.e. violation of law or (genitive case) wickedness:--iniquity, X 
transgress(-ion of) the law, unrighteousness.

1Jo 3:4 – "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: 
for sin is the transgression of the law."

Brian says Jesus did not transgress the Law, and I agree.  But if 
Jesus did what Brian contends He did (which He must have done if 
Brian's idea of what Jesus taught in Mat19:9 is true) then, 
according to the definition of transgression Jesus transgressed 
the Law, which is sin.  Therefore, the only way a reasonable man 
can have hope as a Christian is to affirm that Jesus' teaching in 
Matt19:9, and all his other teachings, were in complete harmony 
with law. Brian's only argument against this is that Jesus had 
the authority to contradict the Law.  The trial of Jesus was 
based upon trumped-up charges. Every aspect of the trial was 
unlawful, from beginning to end.  At the trial, they did not 
charge that Jesus transgressed by "changing the Law".  Why?  
Brian's response is that Jesus shut them up with his miracles and 
his sound reasoning (see below).  Such was not the case at the 
trial, where Jesus "Opened not his mouth" (Isa53:7); yet they 
made no charge that Jesus taught something that suddenly made 
adulterers out of people innocent of marital sin (whose spouse 
had divorced them) and took away their right of marriage.  If 
Brian's idea of what Jesus taught is correct the above is exactly 
what they would have thought and they would have not been silent 
regarding such unjust requirements.

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

Brian wrote: 
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.  

RW:
The fact that they "could not deny his miracles" is no proof they 
accepted Him as the Son of God.  The fact is, because of their 
inability to see truth, Jesus often called the Pharisees "blind 
and blind leaders of the blind (Mt 15:14).  It was because of 
this blindness that they could not receive the evidence – though 
it was overwhelming.  

Brian missed the point on this.  The answer is "no".  Many 
believed, but not those who followed Him around looking for 
opportunity to destroy Him.  They considered Him to be a man.  
Thus, the thought that the reason the Pharisees made no charge 
against Jesus regarding his "changing the Law" because they 
accepted that He had the authority to so do, is baseless.  It is 
certain that the Pharisees who "tempted" Him did not accept his 
authority. 

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

Brian wrote: 
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.  

RW:
From Brian's answer here, it appears he may have learned some 
things from the previous discussion, where he sought to prove his 
affirmative, which he based upon what he then thought were JUST 
accusations made by the Pharisees.   They were not just 
accusations; they were false because they were based upon their 
faulty understanding of the 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? 

Brian wrote: 
19. Yes, no  >

RW:
When a forthright and truthful answer will do damage to a 
doctrine that you are determined to hang on to, your only course 
of action is to do as Brian has done – answer something like 
"yes, no".  This is certainly a strange way to go about defending 
the truth.  

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? 

Brian wrote: 
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.  

RW:
Friends, again Brian could not answer a question forthrightly.  I 
asked a question in an appeal to reason, but Brian responds by 
telling us, "Jesus contradicted the old law but did not violate 
it".  Nevertheless, that "b" is the answer is clear, and from 
what Brian has said above, and in other places, it seems apparent 
that he understands.

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. 

Brian wrote: 
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.  

RW:
First, it is evident that the Pharisees merely asked a question 
that was totally different than on the occasion where they, 
because of their own misunderstand (on OTHER occasions), accused 
Jesus of breaking the Law.  It is not obvious at all that the 
Pharisees implied the charge that Jesus was not teaching 
according to the Old Law.  They simply asked a question that was 
need for them to have a full understanding of what Jesus was 
saying.

Second, Brian would have us to believe that the Pharisees (after 
Jesus explained or "finished") did not accuse Jesus of breaking 
the Law because "Jesus' reasoning was too sound". Actually Brian 
is right, but he would have us believe that Jesus' reasoning was 
contrary to the Law of Moses.  Had Jesus taken that route, the 
Jews would most certainly have made a charge against Him for 
teaching contrary to the Law and would have been justified in so 
doing.  

Brian says, "Jesus spoke with authority, and the Pharisees had 
difficulty backing up their own beliefs with scriptures."  Jesus 
spoke with authority, but he had no authority to change the Law 
on Divorce and Remarriage at that time, and the Pharisees would 
have had no problem backing up their beliefs on MDR with 
scripture.  It was clearly stated in Deut 24:1-4, and they made 
reference to it.  Jesus' response was to nail them for their 
practice of merely "putting away" their wives (without giving 
them a "bill of divorce") and marrying another.  That was why 
they made no charge against Jesus.  Jesus was not guilty of 
contradicting the Law or trying to change it, and the Jews knew 
it.  Since they had no charge against Jesus, and were seen to be 
guilty of sin, they were silenced.  If Jesus had said something 
that they understood to mean he was changing the Law, even the 
most simply minded could have seen the transgression and would 
have been able make the case for a charge of heresy.

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? 

Brian wrote: 
23. First, changing the law would not have been viewed as a 
transgression. 

RW:
So, just anyone could change the Law and it would not be 
transgression?  Who can believe it?  Even if the Pharisees had 
believed that Jesus was the Son of God, which they did not, they 
would have recognized the inconsistency in Jesus if He had 
"changed the Law" on anything, because he said, "Till heaven and 
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the 
law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt5:18).  

Brian would have us to believe that Jesus changed the Law but it 
did not go into effect till Jesus died.  Those of us who are not 
confused, or not trying to defend something other than the Bible, 
realize that it was "changed" when it went into effect (at 
Christ's death), just like any other law.

Brian wrote: 
Not unlawful to remain married instead of divorcing.  

RW:
Here again, Brian cleverly avoids the issue.  The issue has to do 
with those who had been divorced and had married another.  Before 
Jesus confronted the Pharisees it was lawful for a divorced 
person to have a spouse, but afterwards it was not, because Jesus 
"changed it", Brian tells us.  Or does he?  What has he said?  
Where does he stand?  Perhaps the following questions will smoke him out:
1)  Immediately before Matt19:9, do you understand that those who 
had been divorced by their spouse could marry another, and if 
they had married another that the marriage was scriptural and 
right?
2)  Immediately after Matt19:9 was spoken, were those who had 
been divorced by their spouse not allowed to marry?
3) Were those who had remarried (after having been divorced) 
suddenly in an adulterous relationship? 
4) If the answer to #3 is YES, were only the ones who heard Jesus 
guilty of the sin or were all throughout the world guilty of 
adultery if they had been divorced and married another?
5) In view of the teachings of Paul, where he said, (Heb 9:17) 
"For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is 
of no strength at all while the testator liveth," are you saying 
that what Jesus taught in Matt19:9 was "of force" and had 
"strength" at that moment?

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
Indeed, it was the apostles who taught things that were 
contradictory to the Law.  They were able to do so because the 
Law was abolished at the Death of Christ. It was at this point 
that the apostles began to exercise "binding and loosing" 
authority (Mtt16:18,19).

Brian wrote: 
So it would have been very prudent for Jesus to teach his new law 
while on earth. 

RW:
I'm sorry, but I fail to see that Brian has made a point.  It was 
prudent for Jesus to teach what was in accordance with the Law, 
but to wait for the apostles to teach new law according to 
prophesy. The word of the Lord would go forth "from Jerusalem" 
(Isa 2:1-4).  That happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38) 
and continued as men were inspired to write the will of Christ.

Brian: 
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.  

RW:
Indeed, Christ instituted the Lord's Supper.  But it was not a 
law that contradicted the Law of Moses.  Paul may well have 
referred back to what Jesus had taught them, or he could have had 
reference to "inspiration".  Whatever the case, it could not have 
been prudent for Jesus to have taught contrary to the Law on MDR, 
since his apostles were going to teach on the subject after His 
death and could then do so lawfully, even if there was a MAJOR 
change, which there was not.

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? 

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
Brian, your response (above) is very troubling.  It is never 
proper hermeneutics to construe one passage so as to contradict 
another passage.  It is never proper hermeneutics to draw a 
conclusion regarding a passage that can only be true if your Lord 
transgressed the Law or broke a promise.  Because of the teaching 
you have received on MDR you have evidently failed to realize 
that Jesus lived (sinlessly), taught and died under the Old Law 
and that his teachings were in complete harmony with the Law.  
When you consider "who is being addressed" and "what dispensation 
(or Law) was in effect," you can draw only one conclusion, and 
that is that Jesus' teachings in Matt19:9 were in complete 
harmony with the Law he was expected to obey, and did obey.  Your 
assertion that Jesus contradicted the Law, and changed it 
(regarding MDR) is a charge his enemies did not make.  When you 
consider that his enemies were there and understood the language 
perfectly, but that you were not there, it is amazing and 
troubling that they did not charge him with changing the Law, but 
you have done so.

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? 

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
Brian, you have committed the very same error that many of our 
denominational friends have made in interpreting Jn3:16 to mean 
that salvation comes at the point of faith.  Without considering 
hermeneutics, to include the rules to "not construe one passage 
so as to contradict another" and to "get all the scriptures on a 
subject and study them before drawing your conclusion", they base 
their entire doctrine on what the passage appears to say.  And, 
if these rules don't exist or should not be followed, their 
argument (which sounds exactly like your argument) is sound and 
they are correct in their belief and teachings.  Brian, I'm not 
trying to make Jesus say something he did not. You are! And all 
the hermeneutical rules have been applied to the position I have 
taken and not one of them has been violated.  Your doctrine 
cannot be correct, regardless of how "clear" you think your 
"proof-text" is, because virtually every hermeneutical rule must 
violated or ignored.  Just as James 2:24 clearly condemns the 
doctrine of "faith only", 1Tim4:1-4 and 1Cor7:2;8, 9; 27, 28 
clearly condemns the doctrine you are trying to defend. 

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
Actually, virtually all of Brian's answers to the questions 
reveal his lack of understanding and his determination to defend 
his doctrine.  It reminds me of the Jews who continued to refuse 
Christ as they clave to their traditions, even though God had 
provided a multitude of evidence that was designed to change the 
mind of those who appreciated and sought after truth. 

Brian's position stands or falls with the idea that Jesus changed 
the Law before He said He would, before it was lawful for Him to 
so do, and before anyone would have accepted it. 

Brian failed to prove a single point in his affirmative and 
evidently learned some things regarding what Jesus meant when he 
said, "But I say unto you".  Also, I have shown an abundance of 
evidence (in this affirmative) that Jesus' teachings in Matt19:9 
(contrary to Brian's thinking) were in complete harmony with 
God's law that was in effect at the time.

Brian, I appreciate your attitude and disposition in discussing 
these tings, including your prayer.  It is also my prayer that 
you and others will reexamine your position with a willingness to 
change…as you properly apply rules of hermeneutics. 

Brotherly, Robert Waters