Galloway/Waters Debate
Galloway's Third Affirmative
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
Reply to Robert concerning my 1st and 2nd Affirmative:
Robert's reply to my 2nd affirmative can simply be reduced to a
few points.
1.Defining different and contradictory
2.Using Barnes as an authority for what the Bible says
3.Restates that Jesus only taught the new law privately, not
publicly
4.Restates that if Jesus contradicted the law in his teaching, he
would have sinned
5.Tries to base an argument on 1 Corinthians 7, but misapplies
the scriptures.
1.Defining Different and Contradictory
Robert is trying to make a point of some kind that something
being different is not the same as something being
contradictory. In some areas Robert is correct. A contradiction
is a difference, but is more severe than a mere difference. But
even Robert's definitions show that this line is vague at best.
He defines contradiction as "inconsistency" inconsistent either
within itself or in relation to one or more others. Actually
that is also a good definition for difference as well. So both
words, based on Robert's definitions, can be interchangeable.
But let me go one step farther. We are not talking about all
situations. We are talking about law. When we begin talking in
the realm of law, either we are within the law (authorized) or we
are outside of the law. With God's law, this is especially
true. We act and live based on what God has authorized
(Colossians 3:17, Matthew 28:19-20). Therefore, to step outside
of the law, being different from the law would also be to oppose
the law, which is one of Robert's definitions for contradictory.
So in the realm of law, there is no difference between being
different and contradictory.
Robert gives a rather shallow example of a country that have no
laws on hair color, and someone teaches green and blue hair is
cool. Robert, if there is no law on hair color, then stating
what is cool is not even a difference. To use your illustration,
if a country said all people must dye their hair red, and I
choose to dye my hair pink (which is not the opposite of red, it
is just a different shade (but similar), I would still be in
violation of the law. Being different from the law is the same
as opposing it.
So I find it revealing that Robert states,
"It is perfectly alright for one to teach something that differs
with a law, but for one to teach things that are "contradictory"
to and AGAINST the law is another matter."
Brian:
Robert, that is nonsensical. To teach different from a law is to
teach contradictory to the law, because if I am outside of the
law, I am outside and in opposition to the law.
I notice Robert did not deal with salvation issues. Under the
Old Law, salvation was contingent on living righteously, offering
yearly sacrifices through an earthly high priest. Under the New
Law, salvation was contingent on believing and being baptized
into Christ who was our one time sacrifice and became our high
priest (after a different order than the Old Testament
priesthood). This is contrary to the Old Law. Yet Jesus taught
this (Mark 16:16, Matthew 28:19-20).
2.Using Barnes as an authority
Robert goes to great length quoting Barnes as his authority on
many things. It would be interesting to discover how many
commentators Robert searched to find one that agreed with him,
but that would be irrelevant. I find I don’t use Barnes in my
studies at all. I find him somewhat shallow and following the
main line of denominational thinking for his day. So what he
says would simply be another opinion and carrying no weight with
me. I think Barnes had a poor understanding of much of the
principles in the Bible. So, if you want to quote authorities,
quote Gus Nichols, Foy Wallace Jr, Guy N Woods, Franklin Camp.
Men who proved themselves in deep study and knowledge of the
Bible. Don’t go to some denominational individual who cannot
even figure out the plan of salvation to discuss more complex
issues.
3.Restates that Jesus only taught the new law privately, not
publicly.
Again, Robert, let me restate that you are being inconsistent.
If it were wrong to TEACH a new law, contrary to the old law,
Jesus would have sinned teaching either publicly or privately.
But, it was not wrong to teach a new law. Isaiah prophesied a
new way would be taught, Isaiah 2:3. So when Jesus taught the
new law, contrary to the old law, he was not sinning, he was
fulfilling the old law. Jesus would have sinned if he had not
obeyed the old law. And he kept it perfectly, thus did not sin.
Robert, you need to show how teaching would be sinful, and you
have not shown that. (and this answers #4 above).
Robert thinks the issue is,
“Did Jesus teach something on MDR, while LIVING, that his enemies
would view as contradictory to the Law, which would prompt them
to make the charge that He sinned?”
Brian:
Robert, let me suggest you don’t understand our proposition.
Jesus’ enemies are not the issue. They would be the first to say
Jesus not only contradicted, but he blasphemed the old law.
Whether they thought he taught contrary or not is not the issue,
and whether they brought charges against him immediately is not
the issue. As we look at Matthew 19 in my 3rd affirmative, I
think it will be easy to see that not only the Pharisees but also
Christ’s disciples understood Jesus was teaching contrary to the
Old Law.
If you remember, Jesus taught and opposed the Sadducees, the
legal part of the Jewish leadership concerning the resurrection
in Matthew 22. There no doubt he opposed them, and they knew
it. What was their response? Matthew 22:34, “But the Pharisees,
when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence . . .”.
They were silent. They could not answer. Likewise, Jesus’
argument was so sound in Matthew 19, the Pharisees had no answer.
Robert says the Holy Spirit was sent after Christ’s death to
inspire the apostles to speak and write things to Christians.
“The teachings that came AFTER Christ’s death were spoken of as
“The apostle’s doctrine”.”
Brian:
The apostles were ambassadors of Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20, given
authority that was unique to them (Matthew 16:18ff). But they
received their doctrine from Christ, through the Holy Spirit, who
both taught and brought to remembrance what Christ taught (John
14:26). So the apostle’s doctrine, at least in part was what
Christ had taught them while living.
5 Tries to base an argument on 1 Corinthians 7, but misapplies
the scriptures.
Robert wants us to believe that what Paul stated in verse 6
applies to the rest of the chapter, which it does not. In verse
6 of 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is speaking to the statement made in
verse one, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Why?
Because of the present distress (verse 26). This was opinion or
perhaps better phrased inspired advice. This came from the Holy
Spirit (7:40) as did the rest of the chapter. But not all that
Paul states in chapter 7 is inspired advice.
Verse 10 begins with the word but. Now we have a change, a
contrast. He says in verses 8-9, it is good for unmarried not to
marry. Good, but not commanded. Good advice. Easier to remain
faithful to God. But not a command. But verse 10 says, “But
unto the marriage I give charge.” Not a concession. Not
advice. This is a charge. And he goes on and says, “Yea not I,
but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband.” Jesus
had taught directly on this in Matthew 19. Paul recognizes that
this is what Jesus said. Robert wants us to think that Jesus
never taught directly on MDR, he was just responding to the
Pharisees. Robert, what do you think Paul is doing in 1
Corinthians 7? He is responding to the Corinthians. A large
part of the New Testament is responses because of problems that
occurred at various congregations. That does not make that
teaching any less teaching. God simply chose to teach us in that
manner.
There is a reason that Robert does not want Paul to be referring
to what Jesus taught in Matthew 19. 1 Corinthians 7:11, “(but
should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be
reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not the
wife.” Verses 10 and 11 correspond exactly with what Jesus
taught in Matthew 19.
Now, in verses 12-15, Paul deals with a situation, not a new
teaching, that Christ did not address. So he distinguishes, “But
to the rest say I, not the Lord:” Jesus did not deal with this.
Is Paul giving his opinion? No. He is giving them a charge
under his authority as an ambassador and apostle of Christ. Is
it binding? Yes. Is it of the Holy Spirit, thus of God and
Christ? Yes verse 40. But did Jesus deal with this issue during
his ministry? No. He deals here with a Christian married to a
non-Christian. But still what Paul says is in complete harmony
with what Christ taught in Matthew 19, it is just applied to the
situation of a Christian married to a non-Christian.
Now, on to the third affirmation.
This proposition is so simply and easy to show, one affirmation
is more than sufficient to deal with what Jesus taught. Robert
seems to be a little frustrated, because I have waited until now
to deal with the specific passages on MDR. What Robert did not
realize, I guess, is that this is so simple and straight forward,
one has to want to make it complicated (or want it to say
something different from what it says) to not understand what it
is saying. So I chose to use affirmations 1 & 2 to build a basis
that #1, Jesus established a new law (which Robert agrees with),
and #2, during his ministry, Jesus taught in opposition to the
old law in teaching his new law and in fulfillment of the
prophecies of the old law. But Jesus practiced perfectly the
keeping of the old law.
Now, let’s look at a couple of major passages on MDR.
Matthew 19:3-12. Notice some major points.
1.Verse 3. The Pharisees, trying Jesus, ask a question: “Is it
lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.” I’m not
even sure that the Pharisees were asking, is Deuteronomy 24:1-4
lawful, because every cause is not the thought found in
Deuteronomy. In that passage the putting away was “if she find
no favor” and “he hath found some unseemly thing in her.”
2.Verses 4-6. Notice, Jesus does not answer, “Yes.” He
immediately opposes the Pharisees, “Have ye not read.” Anytime
Jesus makes that statement, he is going to contradict what they
said. Now in this case, he goes back, not to the Old Law, but to
the original “Patriarchal” law God gave to Adam and his
descendants, quoting Genesis 2:27. Very specifically he states
that:
a. Two become one flesh
b. They leave and cleave
c. God has joined them together
d. Let not man put asunder.
Now, Robert, is there any difficulty understanding that. One
man, one woman, married for life. That was God’s original plan.
Does that contradict the question the Pharisees ask concerning
putting away for every cause? Yes. You cannot get any more
opposite than that. God said, don’t put asunder. The Pharisees
say, put asunder for every cause.
Does this contradict what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states? Yes. God
said in Genesis 2:27, leave, cleave, and don’t put asunder.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says, “If she finds no favor” and “he hath
found some unseemly thing in her.” A contradiction. Don’t and
do. Can’t get more opposite than this.
3.Verse 7. The Pharisees then go to the Old Law. Now, Robert,
if Jesus was agreeing with them, and if Jesus was agreeing with
the Old Law, why do the Pharisees go to the Old Law to argue
against what he is saying? They recognized he was not agreeing
with them or the Old Law. Why did Moses command to give a bill
of divorcement?
4.Verse 8. Jesus replies, Moses suffered (not commanded) you to
put away your wives because of the hardness of your hearts.
Moses allowed something that was not really what God wanted, but
God allowed it for a period of time. BUT “ again the contrast,
the contradiction. “From the beginning it hath not been so.”
Jesus stays with the teaching of God in Genesis 2:27. This was
God's permanent principle and law. Moses allowed something that
was not what God intended from the beginning. It was the
opposite of what God intended at the beginning. Jesus is going
back to the beginning, so what he is teaching is also opposite of
what the law of Moses taught. Robert, it is impossible to have
Christ agreeing here with the law of Moses or with the
Pharisees. The contrasts and contradictions abound.
5.Verse 9. Jesus restates what he is teaching. If someone
divorces, puts away, his wife and remarries, he commits
adultery. The exception is if the wife is guilty of
fornication. One man, one woman, married for life. The same
principle as in the beginning. One exception, fornication. Was
that what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 stated? No. Moses gave permission
to put away, divorce, and remarry without adultery being the
result. But Moses did that (and God allowed that) because of the
hardness of their hearts. That was never his intent.
6.Did Jesus mean that a person who is divorced for any other
reason should remain unmarried? Jesus’ disciples seemed to think
so. Verse 10, “If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is
not expedient to marry.” The disciples are shocked. Why?
Because Jesus teaching is contrary to what they had been taught
under the Old Law.
Matthew 5:31-32
A shorter reading, but the same contrast and contradiction is
seen.
1.Verse 31. “It was also said.” This refers to the Old
Testament, Deuteronomy 24:1. “Whosoever shall put away his wife,
let him give her a writing of divorcement.”
2.Now, note verse 32. “BUT”. Here is the contrast, the
contradiction. “But I say unto you, that every one that putteth
away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an
adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away
committeth adultery.” Jesus says you can’t divorce or sin will
be involved, the sin of adultery.
Now look at the contradiction. The Old Law said, if you want to
put away your wife, give a writing of divorce. It is
permissible. Jesus says, with the exception of fornication, if
you put away your wife, the sin of adultery will be present if
remarriage occurs. What can be more opposite and contradictory
than this? Jesus is teaching something contrary to the Old Law,
going back to the principle that God set at the beginning (Gen.
2:27) for what will be in the new law. Paul confirms that in 1
Corinthians 7.
Now, one other point. Robert has stated in times past that the
divorce and the putting away are not the same thing. That’s odd,
Jesus seemed to think it was the same thing. Otherwise he is
talking in circles here, and Jesus did not talk in circles.
Once again, these are not difficult passages to understand what
is being taught. When man does not want to live as God states,
we can make our lives complicated and sometimes seek to justify
what we do by changing God’s word. But these passages are so
straightforward that it is evident what God is teaching. Jesus
is contradicting the Law of Moses by going back to the principles
that God taught Adam and Eve at the beginning.
So Robert, the proposition has been proven. Jesus did teach
contradictory to the Law of Moses, by going back to the
principles set forth by God at the beginning, which were contrary
to the Law of Moses.
Brian Galloway
Next Article
Return to Total Health