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 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.