Proposition: Jesus' teachings in the ’MDR‘ texts, such as Matthew 19:3-12, were applicable to the Jews.
Most who read the above proposition will wonder why we are debating it in view of the fact that it is obvious that Jesus addressed the Jews in Matthew 19:9 and that what he said was applicable to them. Maybe it will become apparent to you why J.T. has taken this stand.
First, brother Smith knows and admits that the Law allowed a divorced woman to “go be another man’s wife” (Deut. 24:1-4).
Second, he knows that Jesus, being amenable to the Law, could not have contradicted it without sin, and that sinlessness is a characteristic and requirement of the Savior.
Third, he knows that the Greek word “apoluo,” that is translated “put away,” does not mean divorce because it is only part of the process of divorce—the “bill of divorcement” (given to the woman) being essential to a legal divorce that freed the woman.
But with all this knowledge J.T. is in a corner. He must either surrender or fight with the one weapon that he thinks is available to him. I have debated various opponents who use one or more of the above acknowledgments as an argument, but these weapons (the idea that Jesus contradicted the Law, etc.) are not available to J.T. because of his knowledge. His only hope to save his doctrine is to successfully affirm the idea that Jesus’ teachings didn’t apply to the Jews. In his three affirmative articles he tried, but was not successful.
To sustain the above proposition, all I need to do is show that Jesus addressed the Jews regarding their evil practice of putting away their wives, and it will follow that the teachings were applicable to them. We will use Matthew 19:3-12.
We see in verse three that “the Pharisees came unto him” and asked, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” To the Jews who asked the foregoing question, Jesus expounded upon the Law regarding God’s teaching about treatment of wives. Jesus said, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” It is unfortunate that many have interpreted the foregoing statement to mean that Jesus, at that moment, changed the Law—and from that point forward divorce was not allowed. So, in view of the fact that such would have been sinful we have to rule that idea out, and I'm happy that my opponent agrees. The men were putting asunder THEIR way, which was contrary to God’s way (Deut. 24:1-2; Mark 10:5). Not fully understanding, at this point, “They say unto him, ‘Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?’” Even these Jews acknowledged Moses' command, but then Jesus hit them hard by dealing with the sin of “putting away,” which is what they asked about. And note whom is addressed. “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.” (Emphasis added.) Jesus went back to their original question, and his teaching was devastating to them. He dealt with their practice of “putting away.” He said “Moses suffered” this practice. This does not mean Moses approved of it—he didn’t, but there was no policing of the practice nor punishment for it. And how could there be in view of the judgments that man would have to make regarding husband and wife separations? The sin was between the sinner and God. But isn't it interesting how many men today are so eager to jump right in the middle of such situations?
Now note that in verse 9, the text that J.T. says does not apply to the Jews, Jesus still makes it very clear whom he is addressing. “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.” (Emphasis added.) This floored Jesus' enemies and shut them up on this issue. (Had they actually thought Jesus was contradicting Moses they would have charged him with sin; that they did not is telling.) But the disciples, who also understood Jesus' teaching regarding the failure to obey Moses’ command to give the certificate to the woman to complete the divorce “so she could go be another man’s wife,” made an interesting comment. They said, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” These disciples were also Jews who understood Jesus’ teaching to be applicable to them. And since they were conscious of the need to follow the Law, to which they were amenable, they were interested and receptive of Jesus' explanation of the Law. They made the correct and applicable application. Certainly they did not take issue with God who said, “It is not good that man should be alone.”
The text we have studied can be (and has been) used to support erroneous teaching if good hermeneutics are disregarded. But if we observe the law of continuity, context and audience relevance, the reader can then be certain that Jesus’ teachings were applicable to the hearers at the time he spoke those words. That Jesus addressed the Jews through the entire “ MDR ” context is certain. This means J.T.’s efforts to defend his teaching, which is the idea that Jesus forbids the divorced to marry, have failed; he is now without a single weapon and the only course is to surrender to the truth. The truth is, a legal divorce, from the day God instituted that law (Deut. 24:1-4) to this very day, ends a marriage and does what it was intended to do--free the divorced to marry another. The apostle Paul, who answered “ MDR ” questions from Christians, said, regarding the “unmarried,” which included the divorced, “let them marry” (1 Cor. 1:1, 2, 8, 9, 27, 28).