Galloway/Waters Debate

Galloway's Second 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

I am not sure if this is Waters' second affirmative or not.  
Because of the length of his reply, and because this reply was a 
combination of three posts, I am going to simply list the number 
and my response.  You will need to print out and read Waters' 
reply to see what I am responding to.

Before we get into that, let me make an important point.  Waters' 
whole case seems to be built on his definition of 'put away' and 
'divorce'.  He sets forth the theory that these two things are 
different.  According to Waters, put away seems to be much like 
our society's separation (a temporary situation) and divorce is a 
doing away of a legal contract (permanent).  He is suggesting 
Jesus in Matthew 19 is not speaking of divorce, but of putting 
away.

I find it interesting that if one can't make the Bible teach what 
he wants, the next step is to change definitions.  That is what 
Robert has done here.  His entire theory rests on 'put away' 
being defined differently than 'divorce.'  Notice how Thayer 
defines that Greek work. 

Put away comes from the Greek word Apoluo.  Thayer uses the 
definitions of: to loose from, sever, set free, let go, dismiss, 
send away, divorce.  In addition, the Analytical Greek Lexicon 
defines this as: to loose or release, to divorce, to forgive, to 
dismiss.

Divorce comes from the Greek word Aphistami (Matthew 5:32), which 
according to Strong’s is only translated divorce one time in the 
NT, and divorcement (as in bill of divorcement) is only found 
three times, (Matthew 5:31, 19:7, and Mark 10:4).  It seems 
Apoluo was the more popular way to describe divorce.  Thayer 
defines Aphistami as : to remove, to cause to withdraw, to go 
away, to depart, etc.  Interestingly, he doesn't even define it 
as divorce.  The Analytical Greek Lexicon defines this word as: 
to put away, separate, go away, defect, divorce.

According to the lexicons, there is more support for apoluo to be 
translated and defined as divorce than the word actually defined 
that way.  There is no doubt from the Greek that these words are 
interchangeable, not separate and meaning two different things as 
Robert would have us believe.

A look in the Old Testament will find Robert has NO support to 
back up his theory.  If you do a phrase search in the KJV Old 
Testament, you will find the phrase, 'put away' some 36 times.  
Only 5 of these times refer to wives.  The other 31 times refer 
to idols, or various types of sin.  Now, one could ask the 
question, is God telling Israel to simply separate themselves 
from sin and idols (temporarily), or does he want them to put 
away sin and idols in the sense of divorcing it, permanently?  
Anyone who carefully reads God's word will conclude God wants us 
to divorce permanently from idols and grievous sin.  So, God is 
using 'put away' and 'divorce' in an interchangeable way.

Now, notice the five verses in which put away is used to refer to 
a relationship.  

Leviticus 21:7  They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or 
profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her 
husband: for he is holy unto his God.

Ezra 10:3  Now therefore let us make a covenant with out God to 
put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according 
to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the 
commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

Ezra 10:19  And they gave their hands that they would put away 
their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock 
for their trespass.

Ezekiel 44:22  Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, 
nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed 
of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.

Jeremiah 3:1  They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go 
from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her 
again?  Shall not that land be greatly polluted?  But thou hast 
played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith 
the Lord.

Now, let's look at these passages.  First, compared Jeremiah 3:1 
(above) to Deuteronomy 24:1-2.When a man taketh a wife, and 
marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, 
because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall 
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.

Verses 3 and 4 point out that if the second husband divorces her, 
she cannot return to the first.  Now, compare that to Jeremiah 
3:1.  Aren't these two verses saying and referring to exactly the 
same thing?  Yet two separates words are used.  Jeremiah speaks 
of putting away, and Moses of divorcing.  They are talking about 
the same thing because the expressions are two ways of saying the 
same thing.

Look at the other verses.  Ezekiel 44:22 and Leviticus 21:7 are 
speaking of priests who were held to a higher standard of purity 
than were the rest of the people.  They could not marry one who 
was divorced or even one who was widowed, unless she was the 
widow of a former priest.  Only maidens (which suggests no sexual 
relationship - virgins).

And Ezra 10 speaks of both priests and non-priests who had 
married foreign women.  It was an unlawful marriage in God's 
eyes.  But they did not just separate from them, they ended the 
marriage, putting them away, separating themselves from them, 
divorcing them.

And folks, that is it.  Those are the only passages in the Old 
Testament which speak of a woman being put away.  Nowhere is 
there any indication that this was a separate act from divorcing 
them.  Where has Robert come up with his theory?  Out of his 
desperation to prove what he wants the Bible to say, he made it 
up.  Well, Robert, what you think holds no weight with me.  What 
the Bible says holds every weight with me.  And the Bible does 
not agree with your theory.  So your theory unfortunately is just 
a figment of your imagination.

Now, on to your reply.

#1.  Robert here tries to use his theory to say that the 
Pharisees were not asking about divorce (even though they link 
the two (putting away and divorce) together)) in Matthew 19:7.  
He suggests God had not changed his mind on what he allowed.  Odd 
Robert.  When I read Genesis 2 and Deuteronomy 24, I see a big 
difference.  Obviously Jesus saw a big difference.  I'll agree 
that God had not changed his mind on what he wanted, but when he 
gave the Old Law through Moses (Deut. 24), he allowed or suffered 
some things that were not the ideal that he wanted.  Jesus is 
going back to the ideal.  One practicing what Jesus taught would 
not violate the Old Law.

#2. First, God did not make a mistake.  Because of the hardness 
of the hearts of Israel he allowed divorce on a much wider level 
than what his principle was.  But remember, the Old Law was 
temporary, and God designed it that way.  So he knew this 
exception would not be eternal.

Robert's second point goes back to his fantasy of there being a 
difference between putting away and divorce which the Bible does 
not even indicate.  Only Robert believes that.

Robert suggests that Jesus was only referring to unlawful 
marriages in Matthew 19.  
Robert says,
"The exception Jesus gave, 'except it be for fornication' 
was simply an unlawful marriage, just as in the example Brian has given." 

Let's see Robert.  What Jesus says in verse 9 of Matthew 19, 
Jesus has just said, "What therefore God hath joined together, 
let not man put asunder."  Does not sound unlawful to me unless 
you are accusing God of doing something unlawful? And if "It 
required divorce before marrying another", then why is the 
resulting marriage adultery?  What you are saying does not fit 
what is going on in Matthew 19.

#3. Robert did not respond to this answer

#4. I think Robert missed my point here.  An implication is 
something other than a direct statement.  Deuteronomy 24 is not 
an implication, it is a direct statement allowing a woman 
divorced to remarry.  But this is that which was suffered because 
of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19:8).

Robert still thinks God changed his mind.  The fact that God 
allowed something temporarily does not mean he changed his mind.  
He also allowed polygamy, but does not today.  The reason, it was 
not his original intent.  Sometimes as man was being readied for 
the Messiah (the purpose of the Old Law), God allowed some things 
that he would not later allow.  This is probably what Paul refers 
to in Acts 17:30.  

Then to my great wonder, Robert goes to 1 Cor. 7 to try to prove 
his point.  Wrong place to go.  He quotes 1 Cor. 7:8-9, where 
Paul says, "But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good 
for them if they abide even as I, but if they cannot contain, let 
them marry."  Robert concludes this means divorced people can 
remarry.  Robert, where did divorced people come into the 
picture.  No, Paul is not talking about them.  He is talking 
about the unmarried (that rules out divorced), and with widows.  
Divorce is not there.  Why should they contemplate not marrying?  
Because of the present distress (7:26).  

Jesus' point in Matthew 19:9 is that the person divorced for 
reasons other than fornication is still married according to the 
one who joins together to begin with.  That is why an additional 
marriage is adultery.  
Robert asks, 
"Now how does one commit adultery against a spouse to whom they 
are not married?"  

Now if he is willing to accept the conclusion, he won't have a 
problem with this anymore.  While one may be married before man's 
eyes, he may not be married in God's eyes.  And that is the 
situation here in Matthew 19:9.  A man gets a legal divorce for 
reasons other than fornication.  The state sees them as not being 
married.  But God, who is the one who joins together to begin 
with, still sees them as being married.  In the state's eyes the 
person remarries.  In God's eyes they are still married to the 
original spouse, thus the second marriage is just an adulterous 
state.  And if you want an example of this look at Mark 6:17-18, 
"For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and 
bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, HIS BROTHER 
PHILIP'S WIFE; for he had married her.  For John said unto Herod, 
It is not lawful for thee to have THY BROTHER'S WIFE."  John was 
thinking the way we 'traditional' thinkers think.  Herodias was 
obviously divorced from Philip according to the state, but not 
according to God.  Herod had married Herodias according to the 
state, but God still saw her as Philip's wife, which meant she 
and Herod were living in adultery. Exactly what Jesus teaches in 
Matthew 19.

#5. In Robert's response, he wants to both accept that Jesus 
taught something differently from the Old Law, intending to go 
into effect, but then deny that that happened.  I found several 
problems with the question, Robert, because with the Pharisees 
sometimes one never knows if they are thinking based on their 
traditions, or based on the Old Law.  

Now, as to our proposition, it concerns Jesus' teachings in 
Matthew 19 and Matthew 5.  When his teachings went into effect 
has nothing to do with the proposition, so sorry Robert, your 
criticism does not hold true.  Could Jesus teach something that 
did not go into effect until later?  Yes.  Could Jesus with the 
authority of God have changed things at that point back to God's 
original intent?  Yes.  So whichever you want to go with is fine 
with me.  But it is clear that his teaching was not in harmony 
with what the Old Law taught in Deuteronomy 24.  That is all that 
matters with the proposition.

#6.  See the above paragraph for the answer to Robert's fallacy 
upon when the law started.

Actually, my telemarketing example proves exactly what you are 
saying cannot happen.  Law can be taught before it goes into 
effect.  And it can be different from existing law. No one doubts 
that Jesus followed the law perfectly, and no one doubts that you 
contend that "what Jesus taught was in complete harmony with what 
the law under which he lived."  But anyone who reads Matthew 
19:1-12, desiring to know and follow God's will, will know what 
you contend is false and wrong.

#7.  Robert, you are now arguing a different subject than our 
proposition.  Did Jesus expect his teaching to be followed 
immediately, or was he teaching in anticipation of the Old Law 
being fulfilled and the New Law coming into effect?  That is not 
the question we are debating.  It would be a interesting question 
to discuss, and I'm not sure it matters which part of it is 
true.  But whichever is true does not change that Jesus was 
teaching differently from Deut. 24.

#8.  See #7.

#9. See #7 (and I hope eventually he gets back to the 
proposition)

#10. Actually, the will was in the mind of God, taught by Christ, 
and then brought to the apostles remembrance and further teaching 
after his death by the Holy Spirit.  See Matthew 28:18-20.  So 
you are still wrong on this point.

#11.  I see no problem with the assertion.  See number 7.

What is going on here is that Robert is trying to convince 
himself, and others, that Jesus could not have taught something 
different from the Old Law while he lived under the Old Law, thus 
to make Matthew 19 different than Deut. 24, makes Jesus doing the 
impossible and the sinful.

The problem is, Jesus could teach something different as I state 
in number 7. Based on what Jesus said in Matthew 19, he obviously 
did teach something different, but it was not sin.  These facts 
are no blows to anything I have said or anything taught in the 
Bible.  I think this shows Robert is desperate to make the Bible 
say what he wants, and he just can't do that.

#12. Robert, whether was Jesus taught in Matthew 19 went into 
effect immediately, or a few month later when he died, would have 
produced the same situation in those people.  If they were in 
marriages that were unlawful to God, immediately or soon 
afterwards, they needed to start making changes.  I am glad my 
answer sounded pretty good.  It sounded good because it is based 
on the Bible, not on someone's whimsical imagination.

#13.  I'm not sure of the relevance of #13 to our proposition, 
and I'm not totally sure what Robert means.  He can elaborate 
further.

#14.  Robert asks, 
"What passage in the OT forbade anyone from having a marriage?"  

Robert, no one said any did.  My point was that IF Jesus allowed 
what the Old Testament forbade, and he put that into effect 
immediately, then he would have sinned against the law.  BUT, 
that is not the situation here.  Jesus forbade what the Old Law 
allowed.  And one following Christ's teaching, and even divorcing 
those God did not want them married to would have violated NO LAW 
of the Old Testament.  So, no sin would have taken place.

Sometimes, Robert your reasoning is difficult to follow.  First, 
I evaded no question.  In fact, I thought I answered it in 
detail.  Suppose what Jesus is saying in Matthew 19 went into 
effect immediately, and all those who were divorced for reasons 
other than fornication and remarried, thus now living in 
adultery, divorced their adulterous relationships.  What Old Law 
would that break? None.  They were allowed to divorce.  So they 
could easily obey Christ and not violate the Old Law.  Your 
hypothetical situation is a straw man.

Robert, the only confusing thing to me is how you can say what 
you are saying in view of the clear evidence of the Bible.  And 
also, I guess, sometimes your reasoning is a bit confusing, 
probably because it is based on false premises.  But I am as 
clear, if not clearer about what the Bible teaches on this than I 
was when we started.

#15.  Where is #15??

#16. Robert, your definitions of transgression all involve 
violating the law. Jesus did not violate the law, he fulfilled it 
by teaching the New Law, just as it said he would. Teaching is 
not violating.  Contradicting is not violating.  Don't change the 
definition of transgress as you have tried to do with putting 
away.

Robert then goes into a diatribe about Jesus could not have been 
teaching contrary to what the Old Law said because the Pharisees 
did not charge him.  Robert, go read Matthew 22 and then come 
back to this.  I think you should see your fallacy.  

#17.  You did not ask if they accepted him as the son of God, you 
asked if they considered him more than a man.  Don't expect me to 
answer a different question than you asked.

The answer is not no.  They knew something was different.  Thus 
they accused him of getting his power from Beelzebub.  Why?  It 
was not the power of a man. They sought to kill him and Lazarus 
in John 11 & 12.  Why?  Because what he did was not the actions 
of a mere man and it could influence the people to follow Jesus 
(and not them).  See #16 for a repeat of the rest of this 
paragraph.

#18. I'm not sure that you disagreed with me on this one, but it 
is interesting that even at times when they accused him (See 
Matthew 22), and he answers them, they are silent.  They cannot 
respond to his answers, just as they cannot respond in Matthew 
19.  Your theory that because they did not respond or charge him 
he must have been teaching the same as the Pharisees (and thus 
the same as the Old Law which is a jump in and of itself) is 
faulty reasoning.  Other times they disagreed with him but did 
not charge him.

#19. Actually, when ones position is false, slandering is the 
next best thing.  Robert, go back and read your instructions to 
me when you sent these questions.  Did you not say, please answer 
with a yes or a no.  You are accusing me of doing what you 
asked?!  No other answer was needed for this.  You asked the 
question.  Was there a reason for the question we have not 
discussed yet?

#20. Actually, I thought my answer was forthright.  You simply 
did not give all the choices that needed given.  Both of your 
answers were wrong.  But you also contradict yourself.  You have 
been trying to prove that the Pharisees did not charge Jesus in 
Matt. 19, because Jesus agreed with the Old Testament which also 
they agreed with.  But now you are saying that Jesus disagreed 
with what the Pharisees thought, but not that he actually 
contracted the Law.  Well, which is it, Robert.  Did he agree 
with the Pharisees or not?  At least stick to the same argument.

#21. Robert does not believe that the Pharisees were unsatisfied 
with Jesus' answer.  Look at Matthew 19 again, and again, and 
again.     Pharisees ask, is it lawful to put away wife for any 
cause (3)    Jesus answers, "Have you not read?" and takes them 
back to Deuteronomy 24:1-4?  NO, but that's what Robert wants us 
to think. Instead, Jesus answers "Have you not read?" and takes 
them back to Genesis 2 and God's principles that one man marry 
one woman for life (4-6).  So the answer to their question in 
verse 3 is no.  It is not lawful.   Then the Pharisees respond, 
"Why did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement and to put 
her away?" (7)  In other words, Jesus, that's not what Moses 
taught.  A disagreement!  Then Jesus answered, because of your 
hardness of heart.  BUT from the beginning (back to Genesis 2) it 
hath not been so. (8)  Genesis 2 contradicts Deuter 24, and Jesus 
goes back to Genesis 2.    Then verse 9 is just an application of 
that principle in Genesis 2.

Then Robert wants to go back to his "Put Away" theory which is 
shown to be false at the beginning of this response.

#22  You skipped this one also.

#23. Did I say just anyone could change the law?  Don't slander 
my speech.  As I wrote in my affirmatives, Jesus was the seed of 
promise, prophesied in the Old Law that he would come and bring 
the New Law.  Read Romans 1-3.  Paul sets up who Jesus is in his 
introduction, points out the sinfulness in 1:18-3:20, and then 
points out that the solution is Christ, of whom the law witnessed 
3:21.  Jesus was the word and he had the right to teach his new 
law which would replace the old law, just as the old law pointed 
toward.

Again, Robert accuses me of avoiding the issue, which I have not 
when I said it was not unlawful to remain married instead of 
divorcing.  He states he is talking about those who are divorced 
(I assume for reasons other than fornication) and then 
remarried.  Robert, How do I know that is what you were thinking? 
You didn't ask that question!

But, taking your scenario, if you have a person divorced for 
reasons other than fornication (for any cause), and remarries, 
and he listens to Jesus and decides he has to leave his spouse, 
what part of the Old Law is he breaking.  The Old Law allowed 
divorce for any reason.

Pertaining to your questions:1) God allowed the divorce and 
remarriage because of the hardness of the Israelites hearts.  
That was not what he ideally wanted, but he allowed it and at 
that point it was scriptural and right.2) I haven't said that.  I 
think that is a possibility.  I also think the possibility exists 
that this did not go into effect until the death of Christ.  But 
two points on this: A)What does it matter for us?  Whether it 
went into effect immediately or at Christ's death, it is in 
effect now.  Why do you fight against it? B) When it went into 
effect is not what we are debating.  That he taught different 
from the Old Law is what we are debating, and that is evident 
from the passages.3) See answer 2).4) See answer 2)5) I don't 
think I have ever taught that.  You are the one who brought that 
up.

Concerning the apostles, they are told in the great commission to 
teach whatsoever I have commanded you, and that the HS would 
bring to their remembrance what to teach.  Christ did teach the 
New Law.  Of that there is no doubt.

Let me see if I can set this up so you can understand this 
Robert.  I will use your words:1. "It was the apostles who taught 
things that were contrary to the law" (Robert Waters)2. What the 
apostles taught was what Jesus had taught them (Mt 28:18-20, John 
14, 16) (And Robert according to his next paragraph "Paul may 
well have referred back to what Jesus had taught them")3. 
Therefore, Jesus taught things contrary to the law.

And there you have it, Robert.  You have helped prove my part of 
the proposition.  Thanks

Sure the Lord's supper was not in harmony with the Old Law.  If 
an Israelite had partaken of the Lord's supper instead of the 
Passover feast, he would have sinned. Of course it was prudent 
for Jesus to teach.  He was asked a question of the Pharisees.

#24.  Robert says, 
"It is never proper hermeneutics to construe one passage as to contradict another passage."

Brian replies, sure it is if they are parts of two different laws.        
Robert says,
"It is never proper H. to draw a conclusion regarding a passage 
that can only be true if your Lord transgressed the law or broke 
a promise."    

Brian replies, but his teaching in Matthew 19 contrary to Deut. 
24 does not have him transgressing or breaking a promise, so that 
does not apply.

You can only draw that conclusion if you haven't ready Matthew 19 
with an honest and sincere heart, and if your premises upon which 
you have based your conclusion are in error.  Your two premises 
above ("it is never proper H") are inaccurate.

You keep saying the same thing Robert, and none of it is accurate 
logically or accurate scripturally.  As Jesus told the hypocrites 
in Matthew 6:7b, "for they think that they shall be heard for 
their much speaking."

#25.  Referring to Robert's question, Brian says, But one cannot 
recognize that unless they redefine some words/phrases, as Robert 
has done, or unless they ignore the argument Jesus is using in 
Matthew 19:1-9.

Robert says I have not looked at all the passages.  Yes, Robert I 
have.  Obviously you have not or you would not redefine put 
away.  I also understand God originally laid out his principle 
Genesis 2, he allowed divorce for any reason under the Old Law in 
Deuter. 24, because of the hardness of their hearts, and upon 
being questioned about it, Jesus went back to the principle God 
originally laid out as the valid teaching on MDR (Matthew 19).  
Perhaps Robert is the one in error in not rightly dividing the 
word of truth.

None of the hermeneutical rules you have posted have been 
violated or ignored, so which ones are you referring to?

1 Timothy 4:1-4 is not referring to MDR.  It is referring to 
celibacy.  Now Robert, who is mishandling God's word.

1 Corinthians 7 deals with some questions which seem to come from 
the present distress, vr. 26, and questions about Christians 
being married to non-Christians.  While divorce (or perhaps 
separation) is mentioned, nowhere is the right to remarry when 
divorced for reasons other than fornication mentioned.

1 Cor. 7:2 - Not referring to divorced people.  Referring to 
single people.   (I think you need to look at some hermeneutical 
principles here).

1 Cor. 7:8-9 - Already dealt with in this writing.  Speaking of 
the unmarried and widows.  Not dealing with those divorced 
unscripturally.

1 Cor. 7:27-28  Dealing with the issue of the present distress, 
not dealing with people who are divorced unscripturally.  Talk 
about mishandling the Bible, where do you find unscriptural 
divorces here.  Read the chapter in its context.  

So these passages do not condemn the doctrine of the Bible I have 
set forth.  In fact, a careful reading of verses 8-24 support the 
teaching of Christ in Mt 19 as I have set forth.

Robert types out several meaningless paragraphs and then states, 
"I have shown an abundance of evidence (in this affirmative) that 
Jesus' teaching were in complete harmony with God's law that was 
in effect at that time."

1. First, this is not an affirmative.  This is a response to my 
reply.  That's what you call it, and you have set forth no new 
evidence or argument.  Perhaps you have no new evidence or 
argument?
2. You have not shown any evidence that Jesus' teaching was in 
harmony with the old law.  All you have done is try to redefine 
"Put away" different from the usage in the Bible, misapply rules 
of hermeneutics, and ignore the clear evidence God gives us.  Of 
course I realize, in taking a false position, you can do little 
else.

Robert ends with thanking me for my attitude.  I wish I could 
reply the same, but Robert has stooped during this entire debate 
of trying to insult me instead of dealing with the proposition at 
hand.

Brian Galloway