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.
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.