Galloway/Waters Debate

Galloway's Third Rebuttal

 Jesus' teachings in Matt19:3-12 and 5:32 were in complete harmony 
with Moses' Law, which allowed for legal divorce.
Affirm:  Robert Waters
Deny:  Brian Galloway


By my calculations, this is the last writing to be done in this 
debate.  I want to take a little space and sum up the points of 
this debate.

I affirmed that "Jesus taught new law (contradictory to the Law 
of Moses) when he taught that one commits adultery if he puts 
away his wife and marries another, unless it was because of 
fornication."

My opponent's contention is that if Jesus taught contrary to the 
law of Moses, he would have sinned and been in violation of that 
law under which he lived.

My opponent and I both agree that Jesus lived under the old law.  
We both agree that Jesus lived sinlessly.  We both agree that 
Jesus eventually brought to mankind a new law.  Where we disagree 
is as to whether Jesus taught this new law during his ministry 
upon this earth.

Some points that are important in this discussion.

1. Robert states that Jesus taught this new law privately to his 
disciples, but did not teach it publicly.  If that were true, and 
if it were true that teaching new law would cause one to sin, 
then Jesus still would have sinned.  Violating the law privately 
or publicly would have the same result.  

2. Teaching new law while an old law is in effect does not 
necessarily violate the law.  Even today that principle holds 
true.

a. I brought up the point to Robert that a telemarketing law came 
into effect the first of October.  Prior to that there was a lot 
of teaching about that law.  Many called the number to make it 
illegal for telemarketers to call them when the law went into 
effect.  There was no violation of current law when that 
happened. b. I have point out to Robert that the Old Law points 
to Christ who would come and bring a better way.  So Christ 
teaching in various aspects things different and contrary to the 
Old Law is supported by the Old Law itself.  Christ would have 
been in violation of the Old Law if as Christ he had not taught 
things different from the Old Law. c. What Jesus taught about 
marriage, divorce and remarriage, if practiced immediately by his 
listeners, would not have caused anyone to violate the Old Law.  
If one followed God's original principle of marrying for life and 
not divorcing for any reason, or for any reason except 
fornication, they would have been in compliance with the Old 
Law.  The Old Law allowed them to do more.  But holding to God's 
original principle would not have violated the Old Law in any 
fashion.  So, Jesus teaching that marriage was for life and that 
both divorce was wrong and remarriage after divorce (except for 
fornication) caused one to commit adultery would not have caused 
either Jesus nor people who followed his teaching to violate the 
Old Law. d. It must be realized that the three laws man have 
received from God (the patriarchal, the mosaic and the Christian 
law), have all come from God and Christ (the Godhead).  As part 
of the Godhead, Jesus had every right to point out the temporary 
nature of the Old Law, and the allowance by God of things which 
he did not really want, and then go back to the eternal principle 
which God set forth in the beginning.

3. Jesus taught many other things that were in opposition to or 
contrary to the Old Law.  The sermon on the mount was full of 
such.  In addition, Jesus' and John's teaching on salvation, 
especially in reference to the necessity of baptism, is contrary 
to the Old Law.  The Old Law never taught baptism period, and 
never taught baptism in reference to salvation.  Jesus taught 
Jews were not the only people of God, (John 10), which would have 
been contrary to what the Jews taught, and in part to the Old Law 
itself.

4. When one looks at Matthew 19:1-12 and Matthew 5:31-32, the 
contrast is evidence between what Jesus says and what the Old Law 
said.  Matthew 5:31, "It was said also, Whosoever shall put away 
his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement."  That was 
the Old Law, Deuteronomy 24:1-4.  The contrast though in verse 32 
is between that and what Jesus says.  "BUT".  Jesus is going to 
say something different.  And he does, taking the divorce for any 
reason of Deuteronomy 24, and narrowing it down to only divorce 
for fornication.  Matthew 19:1-12 indicates the same.  The 
Pharisees ask the question, can a man put away his wife for any 
cause, referring back to Deuteronomy 24.  Jesus' reply is no. A 
direct contradiction of the Old Law.  His reasoning: God allowed 
that because of the hardness of the Israelite's heart, but that 
was never his principle.  And then Jesus takes them back to God's 
eternal principle, spoken initially to Adam and Eve and the end 
of Genesis 2.  Unless one sets out to prove something no matter 
what the Bible states, there is no way there can be anything in 
this passage except a contradiction of the Old Law.

5. Robert wants to make the point that because the Pharisees did 
not openly oppose Jesus at that time, then Jesus must not have 
contradicted the Old Testament.  One only has to go to Matthew 22 
to find several times in that passage Jesus contradicts core 
beliefs of the Sadducees and Pharisees.  Yet their only response 
then was to send others to ask questions, and finally to cease 
because they could not answer Jesus.  Their other response was to 
set in motion a plan to kill him.  Perhaps what Robert has missed 
is that the Pharisees did understand what Jesus was saying and could not answer him.

6. When dealing with Matthew 19:1-12, Robert tries to use an 
argument that "put away" and "divorce" are two different things 
(Roberts 3rd rebuttal), but then become upset when I set forth 
why those two phrases are one and the same, stating we should not 
be dealing with that topic.  As I pointed out at the beginning of 
my second rebuttal to Robert, from the definition of the word, 
apoluo, divorce is part of that definition.  This is exclusively 
used in the New Testament with the exception of Matthew 5:32 when 
Jesus talks about a bill of divorcement.  Apoluo was a common 
word used for divorce.  From the usage of "put away" in the Old 
Testament, out of the approximately 36 times it is found in the 
Old Testament, only five of those times refers to marriage and/or 
wives.  Each of those five passages (Lev. 21:7, Ezra 10:3, 19, 
Ezekiel 44:22, and Jeremiah 3:1) all refer to divorce.

So in essence, Robert has no argument for his position.  That 
became evidence when it came time for his affirmatives, the 
chance he has to prove his theory. His first affirmative was a 
series of 25 questions which I assume he believed could not be 
answered consistently if one followed what the Bible teaches in 
Matthew 19:1-12.  All those questions showed was Robert's 
confusion about these and related issues.  

Robert second affirmative (which I never was sure that's what it 
was), was simply a rebuttal to my replies to his questions.  I 
guess when you don't have an argument of your own, you can simply 
rebut what someone else says.  In reply to Robert's 3rd 
affirmative, part 1, Robert begins accusing me of insulting him 
because I cannot prove my argument.  Robert, I proved my argument 
in my 3 affirmations.  Most directly, in the third affirmation in 
which I zeroed in on the texts in question.  You have yet to make 
an argument.  All you have done thus far is rebut.  During this 
entire debate, you have been condescending and derogatory, 
suggesting I was confused and did not understand the issues.  
Perhaps the problem is I understand the issues too well and have 
dealt with the issues, leaving you no recourse but to insult.

With regard to put away and divorce, Robert, you brought up this 
issue in your rebuttal to my third affirmative.  And you have 
brought it up since.  Since you brought the issue up, it is fair 
game for me to rebut.  

Now, with regard to Robert's 'third affirmative (or rebuttal).

Question 1, Robert asks if divorce was allowed under the law of 
Moses.  We both agree on that.  Robert seems hung up on the idea 
that God allowed something for the hardness of their hearts that 
was not so from the beginning.  Robert, take that up with 
Christ.  He is the one that said that in Matthew 19, and anyone 
can see that in comparing Genesis 2 with Deuteronomy 24.  
Overall, Robert adds nothing new on this point.

Question 2, This question goes from being allowed to being 
commanded.  He seems to want to skew things so that I am 
contradicting myself.  The only problem is, in both answers I say 
God allowed divorce under the Old Law.  It seems to me that 
Robert is trying to say that God commanded divorce in Deuteronomy 
24, for then in his mind he would have Christ violating the Old 
Law.      First, if God had commanded the divorce, Christ would 
still not have violated the law.  What he was teaching was under 
the authority of God who is the lawgiver.    Second, the passage 
in Deuteronomy 24 is based on an "if".  IF she find no favor in 
his eyes.  There is the choice.  Any man could continue to be 
married to his wife.  Divorce was not commanded.  Divorce was 
allowed if the person decided that was what they wanted.    
Actually, a minor point.  During this debate I have not been 
reading the discussion on Mars List.  I wanted to keep my mind 
focused on what Robert is saying in this discussion.  Plus, prior 
to this debate in reading the discussion on Mars List, I found 
Robert's arguments had no substance there either.    Concerning 
"putting away" and divorce, they both mean divorce, and they have 
been used interchangeably since New Testament times.

Question 3.  Robert fails to realize that the answer to his 
question is what we are discussing.  Under the Old Law, God 
allowed something Jesus changed.  Thus it was two different 
laws.  Yes, Jesus changed what God allowed back to what God 
wanted.

Question 4:  I pointed out the unmarried referred to those who 
were not married.  Robert tries, using circular reasoning to 
apply that to those who are divorced for reasons other than 
adultery, but gives no proof. Actually this is the very reason 
that the remarriage is adultery, because the covenant of marriage 
with God still exists.  So, the divorced are not the unmarried.  
Their remarriage results in adultery.

Robert makes the comment that "Jesus did not forbid marriage for 
divorced people."  Perhaps he needs to reread Matthew 19:1-12.  
He calls that remarriage adultery.  Then Robert goes on to say, 
"the apostle Paul said such doctrine was 'doctrines of devils'"  
This is a great illustration of Robert's dealing with God's holy 
scriptures.  There is no way someone trying to understand 
scriptures could take 1 Timothy 4 and apply it to a divorced 
individual.  Having the experience of hindsight, we can know Paul 
is referring to the practice that began shortly after the first 
century of saying that being single was higher spiritually than 
being married.  Some denominations continue to preach this.

Question 5: Robert said nothing new

Question 6: Robert said nothing new here either.  But there is 
one comment that I will make.  Robert states that "Brian's 
problem is evidently that he thinks Matt 19:1-12 is the place to 
begin studying the MDR issue. . . ."  My reply, Robert seems to 
start in Deuteronomy 24.  He fails to realize the place to start 
is in Genesis 2.  That is where Jesus started.

Question 7: Robert adds nothing new here either.  In fact, Robert 
has added nothing new during his entire affirmation.  But one 
other comment.  Robert thinks that between the time Jesus spoke 
Matthew 19:1-12 and his death was years.  Robert, let me suggest 
that it was probably weeks or months, but not years.

Question 10: Robert shows he does not understand much about God, 
Jesus' relationship with God, or law.  While Jesus lived during 
the Old Law, he came bringing the New Law (John 1:15-17).  What 
Jesus taught for his gospel.  (In fact, that's why we correctly 
refer to Matt-John as the gospels. Christ's new law.)  Dan 
Billingsley's arguments did not hold water when he taught them, 
and still do not when you teach them, Robert.

Question 11: Nothing new given

Question 12:  Robert says nothing new or nothing that makes sense 
here.

Question 13: Brian is not nailed down.  Sorry Robert.  That Jesus 
taught his new law during his ministry is self-evident and was 
demonstrated in my 2nd affirmative.  When that was to be followed 
by the people is not the subject we are debating.  I suspect they 
could begin following it immediately and not be in violation with 
the Old Law.  But that is for a different debate. And by the way, 
there is a lot of difference between change and destroy.  By 
teaching the new law, Jesus was not destroying the old.  He was 
fulfilling it.

Question 14:  Robert, you either did not understand or chose not 
to understand my point.  Jesus taught something contradictory to 
the Old Law in Matthew 19:1-12.  The Old Law taught that a man 
could divorce his wife for any reason (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  
Jesus said no, that was not God's original plan, and that a man 
could not divorce his wife except for fornication.  That's a 
contradiction and proves my part of this debate.    Now, to go a 
step farther, you are contending that if a person obeyed Christ 
that person would be in violation of the Old Law.  No he would 
not.  He could stay married and not in one iota violate the old 
law.  God allowed divorce but did not command it in these general 
instances.

Question 16: Here Robert again makes assertions with no proof, 
but says nothing different than in the past.    Robert makes the 
charge that with reference to Matthew 22, I had not done my 
homework and then goes to verse 42.  Sorry Robert, I was not 
referring to verse 42.  Notice what I was referring to.1. vr. 15 
- the Pharisees try to ensnare him.  They ask the following 
questions: a. Is it lawful to give tribute? b. If a man married a 
number of different women with no children, whose wife will he 
have in the judgment? c. Which is the greatest commandment?2. 
Each of these questions dealt with a major belief that these 
different groups thought were from God.  Each time Jesus answers 
them authoritatively and puts them to silence.

Yes, they tried to find fault with Christ.  They finally had to 
gather false witnesses, because Jesus' teachings were all 
obviously from God, including Matthew 19.  He went back to God's 
eternal, not temporary, principle.

Question 17: Robert fails to realize that they knew Jesus did 
things that a mere man could not.  That's why at one point they 
accused his powers of coming from the devil.  That's why at 
another point they plotted to kill Lazarus and Jesus.  The point 
is, they did not even truly desire to follow God. They wanted to 
follow themselves.  Robert, I hope you see the connection between 
them and you here.

Question 18: Robert says nothing new and the answer to question 
16 will suffice here.

Question 19:  The Pharisees may not have responded at all.  They 
may have responded quietly.  They may have responded and it is 
not recorded.  My opinion is that they were put to silence as the 
Sadducees were in Matthew 22:34.  Either way, this is not a 
credible argument.

Question 20: Robert says nothing of worth.

Question 21: Interesting. Robert chastises me for dealing with 
apoluo, stating it has nothing to do with this debate, but then 
goes to his argument on apoluo to try to justify what he says.  
Perhaps now, Robert, you know why I deal with this in my rebuttal 
to your second affirmative.  Readers can go back and read that.  
The rest of what Robert says here is a good example of the 
wanderings of his mind, but actually has no substance and he 
gives no proof to attempt to validate anything.    Robert states, 
"Brian you have not shown anything I have taught to be false."  
Actually, I did Robert.  In my affirmatives.  You have not taught 
anything in your affirmatives.  You have not stated your 
position.  You have only asked questions and rebutted my 
answers.    Did the Old Law (Deuteronomy 24) contradict the 
Patriarchal law (Genesis 2)?  Yes.  And Jesus affirms that in 
Matthew 19.

Question 23:  Perhaps Robert wants to debate when Christ's words 
became authoritative.  I believe a good case could be made that 
because they were from God, they became authoritative 
immediately.  But again, Robert, we can debate that later.  That 
does not change what Jesus said in Matthew 19.  He contradicted 
what was taught in Deuteronomy 24.

Question 24:  Robert obviously does not understand the difference 
between laws.  Two laws are going to contradict in places.  That 
is why two laws exist to begin with.  Law can contradict because 
God allowed something temporarily, but then went back to his 
original intent.  Matthew 19, Deut. 24, and Genesis 2 are good 
examples of that.  That is why we must rightly divide the word, 
to know what to apply when (2 Tim. 2:15). 

Question 25: Robert makes a long argument, but never deals with 
how one can be in adultery and not be married. The passages he 
refers to, especially 1 Cor. 7 are not talking about those who 
are divorced, because in God's eyes (there, I said it Robert), 
they are not unmarried, they are in adultery (Matthew 19).

So Robert, the debate is over.  It is evident to anyone who wants 
to know truth that Matthew 19 has Jesus speaking in opposition, 
differently, in contrast (or contradictory) to what the Old Law 
allowed in Deut 24, going back to God's original and eternal plan 
for marriage in Genesis 2.  Roberts attempts to redefine apoluo, 
to charge teaching a new law is sinning against the old, to make 
God out as allowing divorce for any reason today, has not been 
proven and never will be.  God's word is too plain and simple to 
miss this, unless you are trying to prove something not there.  

Brian Galloway