Galloway/Waters Debate

Waters' Third Rebuttal

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

This is my final reply in the negative regarding the current proposition.

Brian Galloway is affirming the above proposition, which he needs 
to do in defense of his teaching on Divorce and Remarriage.  I’m 
denying the proposition because it cannot possible be true; for 
if it were true then Jesus transgressed the Law, which was not 
possible for Him to have done.

Brian wrote: 
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.

RW:
Brian can try to “reduce” what I said all he wants to but such 
will not change the fact that he is seen to have misunderstood 
and misused the terminology, and has attempted to affirm a 
position that can only be true if Jesus transgressed the Law.  
Furthermore, it should be evident to all that Brian has 
misapplied the scripture that he used to show that Jesus changed 
the Law while he lived.  In essence, Brian is endeavoring to 
prove that Jesus contradicted the Law in his teachings, yet He is 
unable to explain how He could do so without it being considered 
“transgression”, which is simply sin.

The assessment that I have of Brian’s final installment is: 
1) He is not accepting the definitions of either the terms 
“different” and contradictory”, and he did not acknowledge 
acceptance of the clear example I gave that showed how the words 
were different.

2) Instead of attempting to honorably respond to my answers to 
his “proof-texts” Brian merely charged that I “used Barnes as an 
authority for what the Bible says”.  But, we should all 
understand that it matters not who gave the explanation of the 
passages (I would have used the quote from Brian's Grandmother, 
if she had said it.) Brian had the obligation to show how the 
explanation was errant, but failed to so do.

3) Brian was basically respectful, except to say that an example 
I gave was “shallow”; and he had some things to say about Barnes 
that was “revealing” (charging that he is shallow, etc.), all of 
which I’m sure most readers do not agree.

4) Misapplies 1 Cor7:10,11. For my exegesis of the passage click here. 


5) Continues to suggest that I am the one that does not 
understand the proposition.

6) Fails to give a real answer to many of my arguments.

7) Ends by trying to explain Jesus’ teaching in the traditional 
approach, which was a last ditch effort because all the other 
“but I say unto you” passages were shown to not be contradictory 
to the Law, but to the Pharisee’s perception of the Law.

Before I get to what Brian did say I want to provide quotes from 
what I said to which he made no reply, as far as trying to meet 
the arguments:

I asked: “Which is most reasonable:  1) That Jesus contradicted 
the Law under which he lived; or  2) The Pharisees merely 
THOUGHT, or slanderous charged, that Jesus had contradicted the 
Law, when he actually did not?”  

Regarding hermeneutics I wrote: 

“The New Testament contains the history of Jesus, which is found 
mainly in the gospels.  This history is important, as is Old 
Testament Scripture regarding Jesus.  The gospels also contain 
record of Jesus’ teachings on various issues.  However, to 
overlook the fact of who was addressed, what dispensation was in 
effect and what law was in effect (when Christ taught the public) 
is to violate cardinal rules of hermeneutics.  We need to 
understand that Christ (after his death) sent the Holy Spirit to 
inspire the apostles to speak and write things to Christians – 
things from which all people in the future could establish 
authority by what was commanded by the apostles and by use of 
examples approved by the apostles.  These teachings that came 
AFTER Christ’s death were spoken of as “the apostle’s doctrine” 
(Acts 2:42).  It is from the apostles’ teaching that all our 
doctrine and all our liberty in the church are prescribed.  Thus, 
to conclude that Jesus taught celibacy for the divorced, without 
considering the circumstances already noted and without FIRST 
considering what the apostles taught, is imprudent to say the 
least.  Jesus answered questions from the Pharisees while their 
Law was in effect, and His response was not contrary to the Law.  
But Paul answered questions from Christians after the old Law was 
abolished and OUR law was in effect.  Thus, why would one try to 
twist what Paul taught to confirm with what was taught under a 
previous dispensation and law?  Rather, we should first 
understand Paul and then seek to harmonize Jesus’ teaching with 
what He taught. To do otherwise is to fail to apply proper 
hermeneutics.”

“But, it would have been neither proper nor needful for Jesus to 
have changed the Law regarding who has a right to a marriage.  It 
would have been improper because such would have been seen as 
sinful by his enemies and friends alike, and it would have been 
unnecessary because the apostles would soon deal with such 
matters and such would be written by inspiration and recorded.”

“Certainly Jesus had a mission and did a lot of teaching.  But 
did He teach something that was contrary, or the exact opposite, 
to a law in effect, which would have required the hearers to not 
only disregard what they had understood the present law to teach 
but to practice something else?”  

The following, written by Barnes, explained Brian’s proof-text 
and exposed his error: 

“By them of old time. This might be translated, to the ancients, 
referring to Moses and the prophets. But it is more probable that 
he here refers to the interpreters of the law and the prophets. 
Jesus did not set himself against the law of Moses, but against 
the false and pernicious interpretations of the law prevalent in 
his time.” 

RW:
Had Jesus meant the "Law" when he said “them of Old” he would 
have been clear. There is no basis to be dogmatic in saying the 
phrase was applicable to Moses or the Law. It certainly is not 
prudent to conclude that Jesus chose to then change the current 
Law, which would have been viewed as transgression and which 
would have served no useful purpose because the Law of Christ 
would come into effect after His death.  If God had intended to 
teach that divorced persons would no longer be allowed to marry, 
but would be "forbidden" to do so, He surely would have waited 
for it to be taught by His apostles.  But since they taught the 
opposite of that idea evidence against Brian's position is 
overwhelming.

“Jesus did not teach something contrary to the Law when He talked 
about adultery being something that could be committed ‘in the 
heart’. Such was true all along.  The phrase, ‘in the heart’, was 
a familiar Old Testament term that was used over 40 times.  Note 
the following passage: ‘The words of his mouth were smoother than 
butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, 
yet were they drawn swords’ (Ps 55:21).  There was no literal war 
‘in his heart’ and neither is it true that Jesus was saying that 
actual adultery is committed when one thinks about it.  Yet Brian 
would have us believe that Jesus changed the Law to read: ‘Thou 
shall not commit adultery in the heart.’  Such was not the case 
because such evil thinking was condemned all along.”  

“Brian should have carefully read the passage regarding which he 
has charged that Jesus is contrasting. Had he done so with a mind 
to see the truth he would have seen that Jesus did not change a 
thing.  Le 19:12 ‘And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, 
neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.”  

I followed the above with a quotation: “Verse 33. Thou shalt not 
forswear thyself. Christ here proceeds to correct another false 
interpretation of the law. The law respecting oaths is found in 
#Le 19:12 De 23:23. By those laws, men were forbid to perjure 
themselves, or to forswear, that is, swear falsely.” 

[Brian evidently is content with thinking his assertion that 
Jesus changed the Law is all the argument (?) he needs.  The 
prudent reader in search for truth will see that Brian has 
misused not just this passage but ever passage he presented in 
his effort to show that Jesus took issue with Moses by changing 
the message God gave to him.]

Brian failed to respond to virtually all of the above and did not 
even offer an apology for his obvious misuse of scripture.  

Now to Brian’s response and third affirmative:

 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. 

RW:
No, Brian, the words are NOT interchangeable and it is 
interesting that you cleaved to the definition of contradictory 
(quoted above in your remarks) that is not applicable to the 
situation at all.  I just gave all the meanings.  Please look 
again at the definitions given below.  

DIFFERENT:  1) Unlike something or somebody else – not the same 
as something or somebody else. 2) Distinct – separate or distinct 
from another or others

CONTRADICTORY:  1) Inconsistent – inconsistent either within 
itself or in relation to one or more others 2) Opposing – holding 
or consisting of an *opposite view* in relation to something.  
[Encarta Dictionary]

The second definition is the one that applies, NOT #1. Brian’s 
position on MDR has Jesus (while living) “opposing” Moses and 
teaching an “opposite view”.  Though Jesus did teach some things 
that were different (“unlike” and “not the same”) He did not 
oppose Moses or God’s present Law.

Brian wrote:  
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). 

RW:
The above is true, but Brian would have you believe that though 
Jesus was a man and lived without sin, it was ok for him to “act” 
contrary to what God had authorized.  Can you swallow that?  For 
Him to have urged the people to do something contrary to the Law 
would have been transgression, which is sin.

Brian wrote:  
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.

RW:
Indeed, “to step outside of the law” would be to oppose the Law, 
but the term “different” does not fit into the picture.

Brian wrote:  
Robert gives a rather shallow example of a country that has 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. >

RW:
Brian, what do you mean, “not even a difference”?  It seems that 
you do see there is a difference in the words “contradictory” and 
“different”.  Indeed, what one might say about hair color is 
different than what was said in the Law, but not contradictory. 
Why? Because the Law did not forbid anything regarding hair 
color.
Brian wrote:  
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. 

RW:
Brian, your efforts to force a term to fit a scenario does not 
change the terminology.  Jesus taught things that were not 
exactly like what was found in the Law, which means His teaching 
were “different”, but such does not support your contention that 
Jesus taught numerous things that was “contradictory” to the Law 
under which He lived.

In your illustration above, you opposed the law because you did 
what was contrary to it – not necessarily because you were 
different. You could have been born with red hair and not needed 
to die it.  You would have been “different” from the rest, but 
not have opposed the Law.

If you can’t understand that the word “different and 
“contradictory” are not the same (though they are) then try to 
see that Jesus did not say anything “different” from the Law?  
But that would be foolish wouldn’t it?  Any time He spoke 
something that was not a direct quotation from the Scripture it 
was “different”.  Can’t you see that?

Brian wrote: 
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.”  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. 

RW:
No, to teach “different” to a law must mean…well see the 
definition above.  I gave an example to illustrate this (though 
Brian called it “shallow”), yet he did not explain it away.

Here it is for your review: “You can go to any country in the 
world and teach something “different” from their law and you may 
not cause anyone to so much as raise an eyebrow.  But if you go 
there and teach things that are “contradictory” to their law then 
you will be judged by that law.  For example, you could go to a 
country and begin teaching that green and blue hair is cool.  
This could be something totally different from anything in the 
law and you could do it without repercussions.  But, if you begin 
to teach people that they have no right to have hair at all, when 
their law states that such is lawful, and start condemning people 
for having hair and teaching others to do the same; then 
lawmakers, law enforcement officials and citizens are going to 
take issue with you. Why? Because their law ALLOWS these things 
and you are teaching something “contradictory” or the very 
opposite.”

Brian has a problem with the above because he sees the meaning of 
“contradictory” when the word “different” is used.  The words 
have been properly defined, yet it is evident that Brian 
continues to misuse them.

The only reason we are having this discussion over the difference 
in the meaning “different” and “contradictory” is that I have 
admitted that Jesus (while living) taught some things that were 
not the same, thus different, from what was written in the Law.  
The problem here is that although Brian admits he thinks Jesus 
taught contradictory to the Law he thinks since Jesus taught some 
things that are different…then such proves he taught things that 
are contradictory to the Law.  Well, all I can say is that 
communication only takes place where both the hearers and the 
listeners understand the terminology.  Either Brian does not 
understand the terminology or he does understand but will not 
confess his error.  I would hope that Brian will understand and 
admit to the misunderstanding.

Brian wrote: 
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). 

RW:
Brian, I did not spend much time in dealing with the salvation 
issue because it was such a weak point and is so easily refuted. 
In my previous response, just under your “salvation issue” 
paragraph, I wrote:

“That Jesus was to do certain things, to include a changing of 
the Law, was prophesied in detail and what He did was fulfillment 
of the Law.” 

You said, 
“But, it was not wrong to teach a new law. Isaiah prophesied a 
new way would be taught, Isaiah 2:3.”

In the above, is the reader to conclude that you understand that 
Jesus, in preaching the gospel, did not teach contrary to Moses?  
It seems apparent that such was your point, though it defeats 
your own argument.

There really is no argument in the charge that Jesus contradicted 
the Law by preaching the good news and presenting to his apostles 
the great commission.  These things were prophesied and He was 
fulfilling it.  There is no support here for the idea that Jesus, 
while living, elected to change the Law regarding divorced 
persons having a right to marry.  

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
There are several things wrong with the above.  First, Brian 
charges that I quoted Barnes as my “authority”.  I quoted him for 
what he said.  (The fact that he is highly respected and deemed 
by many to be the deepest, most thorough and overall most 
accurate does not hurt anything.)  The fact that Brian recommends 
certain brethren as “authorities” and has such disdain for Barnes 
is, to use Brian’s terminology, “revealing”.  Not long ago I 
started a thread on Mars-list in which I requested the comments 
regarding the soundness of Barnes’ teachings.  The comments were 
very positive. But of course, since Brian apparently isn’t ready 
to admit his error regarding the passages he used to try to show 
Jesus contradicted the Law, his only course of action (other than 
say nothing) was to discount what was said and discredit the one 
who said it.  

Brian wrote: 
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).

RW:
Jesus taught some things that were in preparation for God’s new 
law - things that had been prophesied and thus were part of the 
law of God; but He did not teach things that were contradictory 
to the Law that was in effect and which the people were expected 
to follow UNTIL it was abolished after the death of Christ 
(Heb.9:17).

Brian wrote: 
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?”  
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. 

RW:
True, the response, or lack of response, by the Pharisees is not 
the issue.  However, the fact that they did not make the charge 
that Jesus was contradicting (or changing) the law on a major 
point, which they could only have accepted if they believed Jesus 
was the Christ and looked to Him as having authority to make such 
a change, is no trivial observation.  It is an observation of a 
fact that Brian can’t explain, other than to say it is not the 
issue, which is not good enough.

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
Those who want to see what will harmonize with what they have 
been taught, or what they view as “sound” because it was taught 
by such “authorities” as Brian listed, will see it just as Brian 
explains.  On the other hand, those who want to see the truth, 
i.e., what will harmonize with both Moses and Paul, will not 
accept his explanation.  My purpose in debating the current 
proposition is to show that there is no foundation for Brian’s 
exegesis of Jesus’ teaching in Mt19:9 and Mat5:32.  (That I have 
done, and I intend to endeavor to offer further persuasion when I 
am in the affirmative.) What the passage actually teaches is 
something that is planned to be discussed in another proposition 
- though it is discussed later in this discussion by both 
opponents. 

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
What Brian says above is true, but what Jesus taught that was 
“sound” was not, as Brian charges, something contradictory to the 
Law. That would have made it UNSOUND. If that had been the case, 
even the most simple-minded of the hearers among the Pharisees 
would have seen that Jesus was contradicting the Law, and 
certainly they would not have held their piece on such a thought.

Brian wrote: 
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”. 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. 

RW:
Yes, the above is true, but the things He taught were not flat 
out contradictory to the Law; rather, what He taught was 
necessary to the fulfillment of the Law. 

Brian wrote: 
5. Tries to base an argument on 1 Corinthians 7, but misapplies 
the scriptures. 

RW:
I think I got us off on 1Cor7 when, in my first reply in my 
appeal for brethren to follow proper hermeneutics, I stated: “The 
answers are found in 1Corinthians chapter seven.”  

I would love to debate Brian on the meaning of pertinent passages 
found in said chapter, but such would draw from the purpose of 
the current proposition.  Of course we have clear passages that 
condemn the practice of breaking up legal marriages and imposing 
celibacy, such as verse 2,8-9, and 27-28 etc.  But Brian’s 
argument is that what Paul taught was what Jesus had taught, 
which he (Brian) asserts was contrary to the Old Law, which 
virtually all admit allowed the divorced to remarry.  Since 
Brian’s contention cannot be believed until he can prove the 
current proposition, further discussion of Paul’s teaching would 
not be prudent at this point.  If you want to see my explanation 
of verse 10,11 click here

Below is Brian’s Third Affirmation: 

Brian wrote: 
Proposition: Jesus taught new law (contrary 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. 

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. 

RW:
First, there was no need at all to “build a basis” that “Jesus 
established a new law”.  That part is agreed upon by all.  
Brian’s first objective was a waste of time and served only to 
confuse the issue.  The second objective, the idea that, “Jesus 
taught in opposition to the Old Law in teaching his new law…” is 
pertinent to the proposition.  Brian concludes the above 
paragraph by saying, “But Jesus practiced perfectly the keeping 
of the old law.”  I wonder if Brian doesn’t also fail to 
understand the meaning of “transgression”.  If Jesus taught 
contrary to the Old Law, while living, such would have been 
transgression, which would have been sin for Him or anyone else.  
I find it amazing that Brian can make such a remark that, in view 
of his teachings, he can only justify by saying, It did not apply 
to Jesus, He was God and could change the Law.

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
Brian, I’m certain the Pharisees were not asking, “Is Deuteronomy 
24:1-4 lawful”.  They were simply trying to pit Jesus against 
Moses and also get him to take sides regarding the interpretation 
of Deut.24:1-4.  You would have the reader to believe the 
Pharisees succeeded in both of their endeavors, thus outsmarting 
the Lord and having their way with Him.  I contend that they 
failed in both of their evil efforts and Jesus outsmarted them 
and had His way with them.

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
Brian, the proposition you have agreed to affirm deals with your 
contention that Jesus contradicted Moses.  Your statements and 
question (above) has to do with Jesus contradicting the Pharisees 
and their idea of what Moses taught.  

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
Of course, your concern here evidently is that of people being 
“allowed” to divorce for any reason.  We are in agreement that 
God’s ideal is for the marriage to last a lifetime.  
Nevertheless, it doesn’t take a Solomon to see that there have 
been, and shall continue to be, people who are going to divorce 
their faithful spouse regardless of God's Law or what well 
meaning disciples perceive to be God's law.  What Deut24:1-4 
taught was that (in such cases as just mentioned) there was to be 
given a “bill of divorcement”.  This released the one that was 
“put away” from any marital responsibility.  The command for 
husbands to “love your wives” and “wives, be obedient to your 
husbands” is sufficient for any Christian to know that it is 
sinful to divorce your faithful spouse.  My concern is that 
divorced persons, (having been given the “bill of divorcement”) 
who are “unmarried”, are unjustly being denied the right of a 
marriage, and if they are found to have been married they are 
unjustly required to divorce.  They are only allowed to marry if 
they can get back with their first spouse, which also would have 
Jesus teaching something that was not only contrary to the law 
but was described as an “abomination”. Such cannot be true unless 
it can be proven that Jesus contradicted the Law that allowed the 
divorced to marry and unless it can be shown that it was ok for 
Jesus to teach something that was an abomination.

Brian wrote: 
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? 

RW:
First, I find no agreement between Jesus and the Pharisees in the 
text. They went to the Old Law because such was the “authority” 
that was in effect and they sought to set Jesus against the Law.  
I’ve already discussed why Moses commanded to “give a bill of 
divorcement”.  It was because they were “putting away” without 
making it legal, resulting in the wife not being free to marry or 
be with another man without committing adultery.  This matter 
should be discussed in detail in the next series of propositions. 

Brian wrote: 
4. Verse 8.  Jesus replies, Moses suffered (not commanded) you to 
put away your wives because of the hardness of your hearts. 

RW:
In #3 I assumed it was you that was asking, “Why did Moses 
command to give a bill of divorcement?”  Certainly the Jews asked 
the question and their question was based upon fact: ("…Then let 
him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand…" 
De24:1).  Brian, your observation shows the difference in the 
“put away” and the “bill of divorcement”.  One was “suffered” 
(tolerated, probably by not being enforced) but the other (legal 
divorce), in the case where there was a determination to get rid 
of a wife, was actually commanded.  

Brian wrote: 
Moses allowed something that was not really what God wanted, but 
God allowed it for a period of time. 

RW:
The above explanation harmonizes with my previous explanation. 

Brian wrote: 
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.

RW:
There is no “contradiction” in what Jesus stated regarding what 
was in the Law.  Jesus merely called attention to the fact that 
Moses tolerated (or did not enforce) their practice of “putting 
away” (without divorce).  We agree that indeed, “…Such was not 
what God intended from the beginning.”  

Brian talks about what is “impossible” but knows not of what He 
speaks.  The one thing that is “impossible” is that Jesus did 
not, on the occasion of answering the Pharisees’ questions, teach 
contrary to the Law that He was obligated to obey. Rather, He 
obeyed it perfectly in all respects (Heb4:15).

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
I have already explained, to some degree, about the difference in 
“put away” and “divorce”.  (Such is the subject of one of the 
proposition regarding which we have agreed to discuss.)  My 
thoughts on this are expressed in a two part article and can be 
read at: http://www.totalhealth.bz/spiritualneeds/Exegesis%2010rules.html

I do wish to make a point now where Brian said, “The exception is 
if the wife is guilty of fornication”.  The text says, “except 
for fornication”.  The problem that would allow one to merely 
“put away” without a legal divorce was not where the wife had 
committed fornication, which would have been adultery, for such 
required the death penalty.  Rather, the problem was where the 
relationship (the marriage itself) was resulting fornication.  In 
such a case there was no need for a “bill of divorcement”.  Jesus 
simply stated that in such cases where one had “put away” 
(apoluo, meaning sent away) his wife (unless the exception 
applied) both he and she would commit adultery in marrying 
another.  Why?  Simply because they were still married (Rom7:1-4).

Brian wrote: 
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.

RW:
What Jesus’ disciples stated confirms what I have said above.  
They merely recognized that it would be better to not marry 
unless the marriage was legal.  To have married someone that was 
forbidden by Law, such as Herod did and the man in 1Cor5, is the 
very thing that the disciples has in mind. No doubt they knew of 
other instances of marriages where it was “unlawful” (Matt. 
14:4). Thus, it was not that marriage would not be expedient but 
that an unlawful marriage would not be expedient.  (More is 
discussed on this point below.)

Brian wrote: 
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? 

RW:
Brian, I agree that you are teaching something that could hardly 
have Jesus more at odds with Moses.  But I do not agree that 
Jesus was in fact at odds with Moses.

Brian says there is a contradiction in what Jesus said and what 
was the Law.  Once again, let us have a look at the pertinent 
passages:

Mt 5:31 “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, 
let him give her a writing of divorcement:”

The above is what Jesus attributes to what was at one time, if 
not then, the popular position on divorce. However, note what was 
actually said:

De 24:1 “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it 
come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath 
found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of 
divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his 
house.”

The actual text stated there must be “some uncleanness”...  What 
ever “uncleanness” means, it is apparently the key to seeing that 
Jesus was, once again, not taking issue with Moses, but with the 
Pharisees who conveniently forgot about that little detail in the 
law.

The text (Mt5:31,32) reveals that Jesus continued His effort to 
vindicate and clear the seventh commandment from the corrupt 
thinking of the Pharisees.  The Pharisees were of the notion that 
it was lawful and appropriate to put away the wife for any thing 
they may bring to mind.  Jesus was faced with the task of 
teaching against their error and doing so without falling into 
the trap that was designed result in death to Jesus early in His 
ministry.  Jesus dealt successfully with the task He faced and He 
was able to do so without opposing the Law in the process.

Brian wrote: 
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.  >

RW:
I’m glad that Brian recognizes arguments like, “Jesus did not 
talk in circles”.  If indeed my interpretation of His teachings 
had Jesus “taking in circles” then my interpretation would be 
highly questionable.  Now, why can’t Brian see that Jesus did not 
break the Law because of obvious reasons, not the least of which 
is the fact that Scripture clearly so states (Heb4:15)?  Indeed, 
even Brian recognizes that the kind of argument that I am using 
against his position has merit.

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
The problem I see, that has brought on this debate, is not that 
man does not want to live as God states.  There are men and women 
that are going to do that regardless of whether preachers 
(contrary to Paul’s teachings) charge that one can’t remarry 
after a divorce and be in fellowship with God and his family.  
The problem is that for centuries it has been taught that 
marriage is a sacrament and no one can be released from the 
marriage unless God approves.  Then, it is asserted that God does 
not approve of one remarrying after divorcing their spouse and 
that it is adulterous if they do unless it was initiated for 
“adultery”, which the text does not say.  Furthermore, something 
that brings on more problems is the assertion that the “guilty” 
may not remarry, which is another decree that is not found in the 
text.  The whole system is based upon false assumptions regarding 
the teachings of Jesus. Another big problem is that all the 
teachings of Paul on this issue must be twisted to confirm to the 
assumptions that support the position that Brian and many others 
hold on Divorce and Remarriage.  

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
Conclusion: That Brian has failed to prove the proposition he 
signed should be obvious to all.  His main arguments were that 
where Jesus had said, “But I say unto you” He was then changing 
the Old Law to the New.  A reasonable and sound explanation was 
given for each passage Brian presented. My reply (that included 
comments from others) showed that Jesus was explaining the O.T. 
and that He took issue with the current misunderstanding of the 
Pharisees and in no way opposed Moses’ Law on that occasion.  I 
consistently pointed, using scripture and the same type of logic 
that Brian used in an argument he made, that it was not possible 
for Jesus to have contradicted Moses.  Brian’s main response was 
to charge that I was appealing to human authority and then to 
discredit the source.  

Having failed in all the preceding passages he presented that 
contained the “but I say unto you” phrase, Brian was left to 
prove his proposition by the text on which his entire doctrine is 
based.  Well, brethren, since Brian missed it on all the other 
passages how likely is it that he got it right and proved that 
Jesus changed the Law in his teachings found in Matt. 5 and 19?  
It is not likely at all.  What is not only likely but true is 
that the interpretation that Brian and many others have of Jesus 
teachings is false and can only be supported by human tradition 
and human authority, which evidently a number are determined to 
do.  I pray that this number will be decreased continually day by 
day.

I shall immediately begin to work on the affirmative proposition:

Jesus’ teachings in Matt19:3-12 and 5:32 were in complete harmony 
with Moses’ Law, which allowed for legal divorce.” 

In this discussion I shall once again show that Jesus was not 
taking issue with Moses, but the Pharisees’ misunderstanding 
regarding what Moses taught.

I have enjoyed this discussion with Brian Galloway and commend 
him for his good spirit in this discussion.  I trust that the 
remainder of our discussions will continue in the same spirit.

Robert Waters