Proposition: The Scriptures teach that Jesus' teachings regarding Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage were not applicable (except Matthew 19:3-8; Mark 10:2-9) until the Law of Moses was done away.
Definition and explanation of the Proposition:
By “the Scriptures” I mean the sixty-six books of the Bible, the Old and New Testaments.
By “Jesus’ teachings” I mean the passages that set forth His instructions by statement, command, approved example and/or necessary implication.
By “not applicable” I mean that they were instructions to His disciples that were to become binding when Christ’s church (kingdom) was established.
By “except” I mean that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:3-8 and Mark 10:2-9 was in reply to the questions of the Pharisees about the Law of Moses.
By Marriage I give God’s definition. Matthew 19:5-6 “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
By “divorce “I mean, a recognition by the State (in which he and she reside)of their dissolving of the marriage relationship; giving each of them a legal right (according to the laws of the land) to marry another without being a bigamist. .Just because it is “lawful - according to the laws of the land – does not make it lawful in the sight of God.
By “remarriage” I mean, the laws of the land allow anyone (regardless of how many former marriages they have contracted) who does not now legally have a spouse to marry another.
By “were not applicable” I mean that Jesus’ teaching on this subject (except where He was speaking directly to the Jews in reply to their questions) did not apply to those under the Law of Moses.
The Law of Moses was “… our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 2 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Galatians 3:24-25) Also in Colossians 2:14 “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;”
Let’s observe all the passages (that are applicable to day) that were used by Jesus to teach His disciples on this subject. Matthew 5:32 “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Matthew 19:9 “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Mark 10:11-12 “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 1 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
Luke 16:18 “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”
Definition of Words Used
Whosoever – would include all people regardless of race or religion.
Put Away – He/she explicitly declares to the mate that he no longer wills to live in marriage with the mate. He releases her; he declares her repudiated. Civil procedure is a process that follows this and often takes much time to complete. In the meantime, the two spouses are separated (unmarried--not living together).”
Except – Jesus gives a rule and then makes an exception to it. Example: Luke 13:3 “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” The rule: You shall all likewise perish.” Then He makes an exception – which means if they repent they won’t perish.”
The same is true with the divorce question. The rule is, if you put away your wife and marry another, you commit adultery – except (unless) you put her away for fornication. Now if you put her away for fornication the exception Jesus gave is applicable. In which case, you can marry someone who is eligible to have a wife/husband.
Fornication, (from the Greek porneia [porneia] in the New Testament is a general or generic term which means,” sex between unmarried people, homosexuality Jude 7; bestiality, incest, adultery (I Corinthians 5:1). (W. E. Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words).
Adultery, (from the Greek moicois [moichois] in the New Testament is specific. It “denotes one ‘who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another’,” (W. E. Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words).
To whom was Jesus speaking in Matthew 5-7 in the Sermon on the Mount? Matthew 5:1 “And seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain: and when He was set, His disciples came unto Him: 2And He opened His mouth, and taught them, saying . . .” Thus, Jesus was teaching His disciples.
Who was Jesus teaching in the other passages (Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18)?
As in numerous instances in the New Testament, you have to get all the accounts in order to get the entire picture. Mark 10:10-12 “In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. 11So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12"And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." Now in view of the fact that in Matthew’s account after He makes His declaration in 19:9, who questions Him concerning what He said? If you said His Disciples, you are correct. So in view of the statement in Mark’s account it is necessarily inferred that Jesus was speaking to His disciples in Matthew’s account also. Matthew 19:10 “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”
I was reluctant to agree to deny the above proposition after brother Smith insisted on inserting the part in parentheses. I did so after realizing that this is his proposition, and his exclusion of these passages does not prevent me from using them to prove what I need to prove in defending the truth regarding who God allows to marry. That J.T. elected to exclude these texts is indicative of the fact that he recognizes that they very clearly establish the setting and context of the passages as well as the audience to whom Jesus spoke. What J.T. needs to prove is that, although Jesus clearly directed his teachings to the Jews, in the middle of that context (in which he pronounced THEIR practice as sin) he suddenly quit directing his words to them and began speaking to Christians at a later date, i.e. when the kingdom would come. J.T. needs this to be true; otherwise his teaching that Jesus changed the Law, which allowed the divorced to marry another, would have Jesus contradicting Moses, which J.T. recognizes would be sin.
Obviously, J.T. is trying to get around a serious problem inherent in his teaching. While trying to be hermeneutically correct he utterly fails in the end. He has deceived himself into thinking he can say Jesus’ teaching regarding the sin of “putting away” did not apply to those to whom it was directed and continue to follow good hermeneutics. He actually goes against good hermeneutics in failing to observe and follow the law of continuity, context and audience relevance. J.T. will fail to prove his proposition and his doctrine will still have Jesus contradicting the Law, which he knows is an unacceptable consequence for any position.
Now, our differences are not over whether Jesus’ teachings apply to us today. I believe that a woman today who is “put away” by her husband and marries another commits the same sin committed in Jesus’ day. This debate is about, as far as J.T. is concerned, defending tradition—his teaching that goes back to his early years as a preacher and writer, that has Jesus condemning innocent “put away” women to a life of celibacy. Jesus was not condemning “divorce,” which is a process outlined by Moses (designed to protect the women of that time) that includes the putting away or sending out of the house, but was instead condemning the common practice of men (who could have more than one wife) who were apoluo-ing, or sending a wife out of the house. Without the divorce certificate, according to the Law that was under discussion (Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 19:3-8), she would commit adultery if she married or took up with another man. Brother Smith knows that many are learning of and accepting this position, which does not have hermeneutical problems and therefore must be the truth. (At least eight books by various authors of various faiths teach this truth.)
It is unfortunate that J.T. has not already given up his teaching of error that forbids marriage (1 Tim. 4:1-3) and has brethren teaching an unjust doctrine, which God not only does not condone but actually condemns in no uncertain terms. Perhaps this debate will be helpful in opening his eyes so he can, to the extent possible, undo the damage his teaching has done to the church through the years.
Let’s now address some things J.T. wrote:
“By ‘not applicable’ I mean that they were instructions to His disciples that were to become binding when Christ’s church (kingdom) was established.”
Apparently, J.T. is going to try to prove that although the lesson and condemnation of Jesus was directed to the people to whom he spoke, it really was not for them to hear and apply, but was meant to be heard and applied only by people in the church. With this established, he hopes we will be able to forget about the problem that his position poses, which is that it forces Jesus to contradict the Law. Of course, his position has many other problems besides just this one.
“By ‘except’ I mean that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:3-8 and Mark 10:2-9 was in reply to the questions of the Pharisees about the Law of Moses.”
Having admitted the setting and context J.T. has given up the farm. Yet he continues to endeavor to get us to agree with him that in the very next verse, with no indication whatsoever to his hearers, Jesus suddenly quits talking to these people and begins speaking to men and women who will later become Christians, most of which are not even present. Absurd! Of course, J.T thinks that because Jesus elsewhere speaks words that are applicable to all—the Jews and Christians in the next dispensation--that proves that Jesus changed whom he was addressing in this passage (Matt. 19:9).
An important point that J.T. apparently fails to realize is that the “disciples” whom Jesus addressed were present when the Pharisees asked him the questions regarding putting away. The answer the Lord gave the Pharisees shut them up for good on that issue. But the disciples responded with a comment that was not questioning God’s marriage law or his divorce law. It was merely a statement that it would be better not to marry under the circumstance that Jesus had just addressed that related to the exception clause. In other words, it would be best not to marry a woman if she was not free or if the marriage was not legal, such as incest, which would be fornication.
“Let’s observe all the passages (that are applicable to day) that were used by Jesus to teach His disciples on this subject.”
Indeed, but should we not also observe all the teachings of Paul who actually answered questions asked by Christians (1 Cor. 7)? Must we question the applicability of what he said? Can we have and teach the truth on divorce and remarriage if we ignore the teachings of Paul?
Question for J.T.:
Do we find any indication that the Pharisees who heard Jesus condemn their practice of putting away (Matt. 19:9), understood that it did not apply to them? If so, please elaborate.
In Robert's first rebuttal he challenged me to produce the proof that Jesus was not speaking to the Jews, but to His disciples concerning matters which would not be applicable until His kingdom was established.
First of all, According to God's original Law, putting away and divorce was not a part of God's plan. (cf. Matthew 19:3-8). And even though (because of the hardness of their hearts) God permitted it, It was a contingency law that was granted in order to protect the woman who had no rights (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
Second, if the teaching of Jesus was applicable to those under the Law of Moses He would have been CHANGING THE LAW.
Under Moses' Law, the one taken in fornication (remember, the Greek word porneia translated fornication also includes those who are married - adulterers I Corinthians 5:1) was to be stoned.
John 8:3-5 "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"
Notice what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9 "And I say unto you, `Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery'."
First of all, if Jesus was directing this to the Pharisees, He was changing the Law of Moses. Moses said the fornicator (adulterer) was to be stoned to death. How then could Jesus tell them to put her away and if SHE MARRIED ANOTHER – but how would that be possible if she had been stoned to death? You see, Jesus would have been changing the law, for he said "whosoever marrieth her that is put away commits adultery."
Much of Jesus' teaching in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was only to be applicable to the church or kingdom.
"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican" (Matthew 18:15-17).
To whom was Jesus speaking? Matthew 18:1 "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He was discussing things that would be applicable to the church/kingdom of God!
John 3:3-5 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
To whom was Jesus speaking? John 3:1 "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews." Does brother Waters think that Jesus was speaking about one entering the Jewish Kingdom which was in existence during the lifetime of Christ?
In Matthew, Mark, Luke and John a number of accounts that pertained to the same subject are given – with different details regarding that subject.
Example: Matthew 26:51 "And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear."
Mark 14:47 "And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear."
Luke 22:50 "And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear."
John 18:10 "Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus."
Observe, please, that in Matthew and Mark's account, they only recorded the fact that the one of them that was with Jesus (Mark's account – "one of them that stood by") drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
Luke adds to this by saying, "…and cut off his right ear – thus adding another detail.
Then John adds to this by saying, The servant's name was Malchus. So, if we just read Matthew's account we would not know either which ear was cut off, or what the man's name was.
This same manner of Hermeneutics (which is nothing more than rules of communication which have been in existence since Genesis 1) – statement, command, binding example and necessary implication – help us to understand the text. Thus the statements concerning Malchus set the stage for our passages on marriage, divorce and remarriage in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
In Mark's account (in 10:2-9) of the Pharisees questioning Jesus about Moses' Law on putting away, Jesus gave almost word for word the same reply that is recorded by Matthew 19:3-9. However Mark also gives some ADDITIONAL information. Mark 10:10-12 "And in the house His disciples asked Him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, `Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery'."
In Matthew 19, who replied to Jesus regarding verse 9? Matthew 19:10-12 "His disciples say unto Him…" Now, in view of the additional information we get from Mark 10:10-12, by necessary implication (because His disciples replied to the statement made) we understand this instruction was given to them for a time when the Law of Moses was done away.
Thus, my proposition is sustained.
First, I asked a formal question—one that is highly pertinent to this issue--regarding whether the Pharisees understood that Jesus' words (in Matthew 19:9) did not apply to them. Isn't it generally accepted that, for example, when Bob addresses Joe, particularly when Joe first asks Bob a question, what Bob says in reply is applicable to Joe? And isn’t this true regardless of whether Bob says the same thing to someone else on another occasion? Well, the discussion going on in Matthew 19:9 was the same situation as when Jesus told the Jews they were committing adultery against their women (Mark 10:11) by putting them away. What indication can we find in the text that would make us think the Pharisees did not understand Jesus' words to be applicable to them? The proposition J.T. is affirming is impossible to sustain. Nevertheless, even though he has not and cannot answer this crucial question, J.T. imprudently ends his second article by asserting, “Thus my proposition is sustained.”
The proposition brother Smith is affirming is that Jesus’ teaching was not applicable until the church was established. I did not challenge J.T. to prove that Jesus was not speaking to the Jews but to his disciples, as he charged. In fact, I made the point that his disciples WERE Jews, and no doubt many disciples were Pharisees. Thus, when Jesus spoke to his disciples he was speaking to Jews and they, like Jesus, were amenable to the Law. The issue in this discussion is whether or not Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 was applicable to the hearers at the time he spoke them. I say, YES, it is obvious. J.T. says NO, the teachings would become applicable after the new law came into effect.
J.T. understands that “putting away” and “divorce” are not the same thing. (Few who seek to defend tradition recognize this fact.) He also understands that we must not accept a position that has Jesus contradicting the Law, which is another correct and important observation. Hopefully, J.T. will realize his failure to sustain his proposition and will come to accept the truth, which is that Jesus never said "divorced" people commit adultery, but instead said a woman "put away" (and still married) would commit adultery if she married another man. This is the only position that makes sense as it has God, Moses, Jesus and Paul in harmony. What reasonable gospel preacher would not be happy to learn that God does not, after all, require him to break up happy homes and impose celibacy on the divorced? When one learns the truth regarding what Jesus actually said it should then be easy to follow Paul's command regarding the "unmarried" (which includes the divorced) to "let them marry" (1 Cor. 7:8, 9).
Just what did "Moses suffer"? It wasn’t divorce—that was commanded (Deut. 24:1-2; Mark 10:3) so the woman could “go be another man’s wife.” While it is a great sin to deal treacherously with a wife (Mal. 2:14) God authorized divorce. But he (wisely) suffered the “putting away” without the certificate, i.e. there was no policing or punishment for the sin. Imagine a world where all separations required immediate divorce proceedings. This would lesson the possibility of reconciliation, which God wants (1 Cor. 7:11).
J.T. wrote “…if the teaching of Jesus was applicable to those under the Law of Moses He would have been CHANGING THE LAW.”
No, while J.T.’s position has this conundrum mine does not. It would be nice if he could actually consider the possibility that his belief, regarding what Jesus taught, is error and quit thinking of it as if it is the standard.
J.T., you should know better than to assert or imply that fornication and adultery are the same thing. Adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery. An illegal/unscriptural marriage results in fornication, but the Law required no death penalty for it (Ezra 10:19; Matt. 14:4; 1 Cor. 5:1). The "exception" (Matt. 19:9) involved fornication--an illegal or illicit marriage, as it is sometimes so translated.
Regarding Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 J.T. said, “…if Jesus was directing this to the Pharisees, He was changing the Law of Moses” because Moses said the “fornicator (adulterer) was to be stoned to death.”
The above argument fails because Jesus was simply telling the Pharisees that the practice of putting away a wife was “adultery against her” (Mark 10:11) and caused her to commit adultery if (not being free) she married another. The fact that the “fornicator” in the exception clause (Matt. 19:9) wasn’t put to death indicates that adultery was not the sin. The sin was an illicit/unscriptural marriage. “…If the case of the man with the woman is so, it is not good to marry” (Matt. 19:10; YLT).
The teaching found in Matthew 18 was applicable to the disciples (Jews) who lived under and were amenable to the Law. As J.T. pointed out, the teaching in the above text would apply “in the kingdom of heaven.” But how can we say the text did not apply to those to whom it was addressed? J.T. needs Matthew 19:9 not to be applicable to the Jews because if it is applicable his position (not mine) has Jesus contradicting the Law.
In John 3:3-5, Jesus was obviously speaking to Nicodemus about how to get into the kingdom. Did it apply to him? Yes. Can we apply it today? Yes, because the text presents teaching regarding the kingdom that now exists--a fact that does not require that we deny that Jesus addressed Nicodemus or that the text was applicable to him.
Just because one gospel account of an incident does not give all the facts, that does not mean we may disregard good hermeneutics. It is very disturbing that J.T. seems not to recognize that there is much more to hermeneutics besides “direct command, example and necessary implication.” His argumentation violates the “law of continuity,” “context” and “audience relevance.” Jesus’ teaching applied to the disciples, who were Jews and possibly guilty of putting away along with the Pharisees, who were Jesus’ enemies. This means J.T.’s effort to distinguish between Pharisees and disciples, and therefore establish that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 did not apply to those who heard it, but would apply only when the kingdom came, is erroneous.
First, I will answer brother Waters’ “formal question.” “Did the Pharisees understand Jesus’ words (in Matthew 19:9) did not apply to them?” Jesus’ words were not spoken to them, so how could they apply? No they neither applied to them nor anyone else until Christ’s law went into effect. I pointed this out in my last affirmative. Nothing Jesus taught in Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, John 3:3-5, or Matthew 18:15-17 would change nor add to the Law of Moses. Neither would these be applicable to the Pharisees, Nicodemus nor Christ’s disciples at the time spoken.
Jesus taught the Samaritan woman in John 4:19-21. “The woman saith unto Him, Sir, I perceive that Thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and Ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem , worship the Father.” Was that instruction applicable then to the Jews? Were they to quit worshiping in Jerusalem THEN?
Brother Waters said, “What indication can we find in the text that would make us think the Pharisees did not understand Jesus' words to be applicable to them?” Again, I pointed out in my last affirmative that in order to know what is being said and to whom it is being said, we must consult the immediate and greater context. In the greater context in Mark 10:10 “And in the house His disciples asked Him again of the same matter.” Notice that the text says, ‘in the house His disciples asked him AGAIN --- about this matter.” Surely we know what the word AGAIN means. The context shows that the question was asked a SECOND TIME by ANOTHER GROUP.
Also this corroborates the fact in Matthew 19:10-12 that Jesus’ disciples made the statement regarding what He had just said concerning divorce and remarriage instead of the Pharisees. It is always appropriate and necessary to consult the immediate and the remote context of what happened as we pointed out in the last affirmative regarding the High Priest’s servant whose ear was cut off by Peter.
Let’s look at these facts again.
If we just read Mark’s account we wouldn’t even know if it was one of Jesus disciples. “…one of them that stood by” (Mark 14:47).
If we only read Matthew’s and Mark’s account, we wouldn’t know which ear he cut off.
If we only read Matthew, Mark and Luke we wouldn’t know WHO cut off the ear or WHOSE ear was cut off. But John apprises us of both answers.
I am not telling brother Waters anything he doesn’t already know. He, no doubt, would consult all four gospels regarding any other subject (other than divorce and remarriage). He just can’t afford to admit that Mark’s account of this same occurrence shows conclusively that Jesus was speaking to His disciples and not the Pharisees as in the preceding verses of Matthew 19.
And, if the above arguments were not enough, Matthew 19:9 would have changed the Law of Moses which Jesus said He did not come to do. Matthew 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
Let’s see how the brother’s reasoning in his last negative of Matthew 19:9 would read. He correctly says that “putting away” and “divorce” are not the same. He then says that Jesus was instructing the Pharisees concerning Moses’ law on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19:9. He surmises that because Jesus says apoluoe (puts away) his wife that she is being put away without a divorce. But what did Moses’ law teach? It taught that he was to put the writing of divorce in her hand BEFORE he sent her out of the house. Now according to what brother Waters wrote in his last negative, Jesus should have said (IF He was speaking to the Pharisees and correcting them concerning Moses’ Law), “Whosoever shall put away his wife (except he give her a writing of divorcement) and marries another commits adultery. However, there is no rhyme or reason that one can make apoluoe (puts away) equal to porneia (fornication). Yet that is exactly what Robert is trying to do.
Robert also said, “Just what did "Moses suffer"? It wasn’t divorce—that was commanded (Deut. 24:1-2; Mark 10:3) so the woman could go be another man’s wife.” He says, Just what did "Moses suffer"? It wasn’t divorce.” But let’s turn back and read the passage.. Matthew 19: "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” In the commandment that Moses gave (which was contingency law – necessary to regulate an abuse which was already in existence) what was necessary BEFORE she could be dismissed from the house (put away) – a writing of DIVORCEMENT! To try to make Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 et al, be an explanation of the Moses’ law on divorce and remarriage is ludicrous.
God, because of the hardness of their hearts (suffered – permitted) them to put away their wives. BUT FIRST, they had to give them a writing of divorcement, put it in their hand and THEN put them away (send them out of the house).
Brother Waters chided me for implying that fornication and adultery are the same thing. He said: “J.T., you should know better than to assert or imply that fornication and adultery are the same thing.” Robert you have enough problems answering what I have said without putting up a straw man of something that I didn’t say and knocking it down. In my first affirmative I defined the words fornication and adultery as:
Fornication, (from the Greek porneia [porneia] in the New Testament is a general or generic term which means,” sex between unmarried people, homosexuality Jude 7; bestiality, incest, adultery (I Corinthians 5:1). (W. E. Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words).
Adultery, (from the Greek moicois [moichois] in the New Testament is specific. It “denotes one ‘who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another’,” (W. E. Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words).
As a general rule, the word adultery is used to describe those who are married who commit sexual immorality. However, in Matthew 5:28 Jesus said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Does that mean that a single man can look on a single woman to lust after her without committing adultery with her in his heart?
We look forward to brother Waters’ first affirmative.
My formal question, stated in my first rebuttal, was: "Do we find any indication that the Pharisees who heard Jesus condemn their practice of putting away (Matt. 19:9), understood that it did not apply to them?" By that I was hoping, if such an indication existed, that J.T. would point out something in the context of the conversation that would answer my question. But that did not happen. Also, my original question was different. He didn't quote my question right nor did he answer it. I pointed out that the Pharisees heard Jesus condemn their practice. This was not denied. Since Jesus condemned the Jew's practice of putting away, his condemnation obviously applied to them. Are we to suppose that J.T. would have us believe that those sinners, who committed adultery against their wives, didn't need to repent of that sin immediately after learning of the sin? Who can deny they needed to repent? J.T. didn't. He just avoided the point. He did assert (with no proof) that the Pharisees didn't apply it to themselves. And he accurately stated that nothing Jesus taught would change nor add to the Law. But he obviously had no answer for the argument.
J.T. makes an argument using John 4:19-21, where Jesus told a woman that "the hour cometh" when people would not worship in Jerusalem. J.T. asks, "Was that instruction applicable then to the Jews? Were they to quit worshiping in Jerusalem THEN?" The instruction was applicable to the Jews because it was said to them. They were not to quit worshiping in Jerusalem immediately because "the hour" had not yet come.
J.T. made an argument using Mark 10:10. He pointed out that the disciples asked Jesus "again" about the matter. J.T. has no valid argument here because the disciples were Jews who lived under the Law, and were amenable to it just as Jesus was.
J.T. tried to make an argument from Matthew 19:10--the disciples’ comment. Again, the disciples were Jews.
Brother Smith made the argument that we don't get all the truth from one gospel account. That is true, but due to the fact that nothing else said in the other gospels helps him (because the disciples were Jews), this argument fails.
Next, J.T. asserts that I failed to consult other gospels in studying divorce and remarriage. That is so obviously false, based upon my writings in my recent book "Put Away But Not Divorced" and numerous other writings, the charge is hardly worth a reply.
J.T. wrote, "He just can’t afford to admit that Mark’s account of this same occurrence shows conclusively that Jesus was speaking to his disciples and not the Pharisees as in the preceding verses of Matthew 19." Again, this is not true. Jesus was speaking to his disciples, but they were Jews and therefore amenable to the Law. J.T. needs them to be Christians, composed of Jews and Gentiles, in the church age.
J.T. said, "...Matthew 19:9 would have changed the Law of Moses which Jesus said He did not come to do. Matthew 5:17 ’Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.’” This is true, and is a very powerful argument that I have used for years in convincing others of the error of the very doctrine that J.T. is trying to defend--that the divorced commit adultery when they marry. Of course, J.T. thinks this argument does not hurt his teaching; but since he has utterly and completely failed to sustain his proposition, this very argument, to which he has ascribed, demands he make a change in his teaching and practice.
J.T. admits that "put away" (apoluo) and divorce are not the same thing. This can mean only one thing; Jesus did not say a divorced woman commits adultery when she marries another. It simply means she does so if she is only "put away," which is what the text says and which makes perfect sense. J.T. then asserts that I'm trying to make "apoluo (put away)" equal to "porneia (fornication)." That is not true. Apoluo means to repudiate, send away and put away. This is something that commonly happens in marriage, especially in parts of the world where men treat the women like slaves. But after sending his wife away a man may decide to take her back, and may do so unless she married another man (Deut. 24:1-4). Fornication, committed when the marriage is unlawful, is the exception that Jesus gave. He was saying it is not wrong to put away in such cases--no certificate is needed.
Regarding my explanation of "what Moses suffered" J.T. said a "writing of divorcement" was necessary "before she could be dismissed from the house..." OK, that is true. That is what was "commanded." Therefore, something else must have been "suffered." J.T. then said, "To try to make Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 et al, be an explanation of Moses’ law on divorce and remarriage is ludicrous." No, J.T.'s teaching is what is ludicrous. Jesus was speaking to men who were committing the sin of "putting away" and everything he said was in complete harmony with Moses.
Brother Smith, I thought you were implying that "fornication" in the exception clause was adultery, as many seem to think, but which is error. If you were not, I apologize for the misrepresentation and applaud you for getting it right.
I would like to note that J.T. did not reply to my comments regarding his failure to follow good hermeneutics. I shall go there in my affirmative articles.
The issue in this discussion is whether or not Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 was applicable to the hearers at the time he spoke to them. J.T. needs the text not to be applicable--otherwise, by his own admission his doctrine is error. Yet he has presented nothing that supports his argument. My position on MDR does not have this problem, or any other problem, so why not give it up and teach the truth that Paul demands. For those who are "unmarried" Paul says: "let them marry."