Galloway/Waters Debate

Waters' First Rebuttal

Proposition: 
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.
Affirm:  Brian Galloway
Deny:  Robert Waters

In a letter to me Brian indicated that he would have no problem 
with the propositions.  He stated in his affirmative, “actually, 
this is a fairly easy topic to affirm.”  It remains to be seen 
how he will begin in his next reply, but I can see why Brian was 
confident in entering the first part of this debate.  He has 
evidently simply misunderstood the proposition and the issues 
because I found nothing of significance in Brian’s first article 
with which to disagree. 

THE ISSUE IS NOT: 1) Did Jesus establish a law that was 
“contradictory” to the Law of Moses?  He did indeed. 
2) Did Jesus teach some things while living that was     
“different” from the Law?  He did indeed.

THE ISSUE IS: 1) Was Jesus’ reply to the Jews who sought to 
entrap him on the hot topic commonly called "Divorce and 
Remarriage" something that His enemies could or would construe as 
contradictory to the Law and therefore sinful? 
2) Did Jesus contradict the Law in his teachings in Matt. 19:9?

We must realize that these Pharisees were looking for words from 
Jesus’ mouth that they could use against him.  Had they 
understood him to flatly contradict Moses they most certainly 
would have seized the opportunity to use it against Him.  They 
viewed Jesus as a man subject to the Law and anyone who taught 
contrary to that law (while it was in force) would be sinning 
against it and God.  

Now, Jesus did come to fulfill the Law and He certainly 
accomplished His purpose.  First, John the Baptist (the 
forerunner for Jesus) paved the way for Him and introduced Him as 
the Son of God.  Second, Jesus taught his apostles and disciples 
various things.  He told his apostles that the Holy Spirit would 
remind them of the things He had taught them.  But from these 
facts we have no reason to conclude that in dealing with the 
Pharisee’s questions Jesus taught something that was contrary to 
the Law to which He was subject.  It was not until after Jesus 
death that the New Testament went into effect.  This law was 
likely planned and discussed among those who would reveal and 
enforce it (as are all new laws).  This new law contains many 
things that are obviously contradictory to the Old Testament.  
But the issue in this discussion involves a completely different 
matter.  Did Jesus contradict the Law His response to the 
Pharisees’ question pertaining to the putting away of a wife?  
Brian’s position on the Divorce and Remarriage issue evidently 
has Jesus doing just that.  I maintain that He did not, at that 
time, say a single word that was not in complete harmony with 
Deut. 24:1-4.  My opponent evidently thinks he did, if he 
understands the proposition and the issue.  However, so far, he 
has not presented a single thing that proves that Jesus’ 
response…was contrary to the Law.  

Brian stated that he would focus his attention in the second 
affirmative at some of the specific contradictions Christ made.  
I suppose that if Brian could do what he plans to do it would 
help him in this debate, but if he proves his point he will have 
proved that Jesus sinned.  I do not know why a preacher of the 
gospel would seek to defend a proposition at such a great 
expense.  If he succeeds he proves Jesus sinned, which would mean 
our religion is vain.

It should be apparent that Brian has not understood the issue 
here and has not effectively addressed it.  Nevertheless, his 
article was interesting and informative and in a good spirit.  I 
look forward to seeing Brian’s response, which hopefully is that 
he did misunderstand the issue, is willing to concede that Jesus 
did not go against the Law in His response to the Pharisees who 
sought to entrap him (which would have been sin), and is ready to 
debate the next proposition. 

A few questions for Robert:

1. Can two laws exist and be the same? 

ANSWER: Possibly.  One country or state could copy another. 
Nevertheless, it is a non-issue.

2. If two laws exist, isn't it necessary that contradictions also 
exist between the two laws?  

ANSWER: No, but it is a non-issue

3. When the Holy Spirit brought to the apostles' remembrance what 
Jesus taught, was he bringing to remembrance the Law of Moses, or 
teaching that was to be contained in the new law? 

ANSWER: The things He would bring to their “remembrance” were 
most likely things Jesus taught them privately in preparation for 
the new law.  His discussion with the Pharisees (Matt. 19:9) 
could not have been new law (as it is commonly asserted that 
Jesus changed it on that occasion) because he would have had to 
break the Old Law to make such a change.  The law was changed 
LATER – not on that occasion.  The apostles answered questions 
from Christians regarding who has a right to a marriage.  The 
answers are found in 1Corinthians chapter 7.

4. In light of the fact that the old law predicted (prophesied) 
the new law being established, then what would make Christ sin 
when he fulfilled the old law by establishing the new law, a law 
that in some points contradicted the old law? 

ANSWER: He would not and did not sin.  Again, this is a Non-
issue.

5. What would the LOM teach one must do to be saved?  Was that in 
contradiction to what Jesus taught?  Was it in contradiction to 
what was taught after Pentecost? 

ANSWER: A non-issue.

6.  Was the LOM in contradiction to "that which was from the 
beginning?"  What word indicates that contrast? 

ANSWER: No.  Moses “suffered” the mere “putting away” of wives 
(without decree) up until the writing of Deut. 24:1-4.  From the 
beginning “it was not so”.  This does not mean God authorized 
what they were doing, except in the case of illegal marriages or 
marriages that should not have taken place.  In the second 
proposition we will discuss the difference in the mere “putting 
away” and an actual divorce where the spouse was to “give bill of 
divorce”, which was a command to those who were through with 
their wife.

Brotherly,
Robert Waters