Proposition: Jesus' teachings in the ’MDR‘ texts, such as Matthew 19:3-12, were applicable to the Jews.
In the first paragraph of his 2nd affirmative, Robert tries to convince his readers that he “showed that the entire passage (3-12) was applicable to the Jews, including the disciples.” No! That was what you sought to show. However, in my first negative I showed how that would not only contradict Moses’ Law, but would mean that the person who remarried would be committing adultery for which Moses’ Law demanded the death penalty. How, then, as Moses’ Law declared, would she be able to return to her first husband if she was DEAD – THAT’S GRAVEYARD DEAD.
Also in paragraph one brother Waters brings up Mark 10:11. Which says, Mark 10:11 “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.” Robert believes that the one against whom the husband commits adultery is the first wife. However, the rules of grammar will not allow his conclusion. The rules of grammar are that the antecedent of the pronoun is “another” (woman understood). The antecedent of “her” is “another woman.” But then, Robert has been known to argue with a Bible Dictionary as we are going to see before I conclude. In fact, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 has not one single thing to do with Matthew 19:9 or vise-versa.
Ans. 2nd para
Brother Waters says “he then quoted only verses 3-8 of the text, separating it from verse 9. There is no logical reason for separating this text--it is all one passage directed to the same audience.” The reason may not be logical to brother Waters, but it is scriptural. Read Mark 10:2-9 and you will see the same account that is in Matthew 19:3-8 recorded in Mark’s account. Now look at verse 10ff. It may not be logical to brother Waters, but by necessary implication, in Matthew 19:9-12 Jesus disciples were commenting on what Jesus said, and He is speaking to His disciples- Robert to the contrary notwithstanding.
Ans. 3rd para
In his 3rd paragraph (2nd aff.), Robert says, “My opponent is laboring very hard to make his doctrine harmonize with Jesus’ teachings, but he seems not to even be concerned about Paul's teachings.” I wonder why? Brother Waters, Paul’s teaching is not under consideration. Read your proposition. If you want to discuss I Corinthians 7, we can do that. But now, you have only one affirmative left to answer the arguments and questions I asked you in my last negative.
Ans. 4th & 5th paras
When Robert talks about Deuteronomy 24:1-4, he speaks of it as if this was a great gift that God gave to the Jews. It was a great gift to the women who were being put away with no means of support who were then forbidden to remarry. I stated in the first affirmative that it was a contingency law. It was given to correct the ungodliness of the Jewish men for the above reason. But Jesus makes two points that condemned the Jews. “Because of the hardness of your hearts” Moses permitted putting away” and “from the beginning it was not so.” It was because of the hardness of their hearts that God simply “permitted” it.
Ans 6th para
Brother Waters! You almost stumbled onto the truth. You said, “Therefore, when Jesus said ‘let not man put asunder’ he was saying, ‘You need to let God 'put asunder' (if the marriage is to be ended) by following his law.’ Man's way of putting asunder resulted in adultery, but God's way allowed the woman to "go be another man's wife." Robert, tell me what the difference is in the definition of apoluo (apoluo – to loose, separate - Vine) and corizo (chorizo“to put apart, separate,” -Vine’s Dictionary of Biblical Words, page 296). As you can see, the two words mean basically the same thing. The truth of the matter is, I pointed out to brother Waters that if Matthew 19:9 was imposed upon those under Moses’ Law, the man who “put her away” without divorce and married another, they were both guilty of adultery. And in his 2nd affirmative he said, “Sexual adultery, a man’s having sex with another man's wife, was a capital offense.” So as I said in the beginning of this paragraph that Robert almost stumbled onto the truth. Now Robert if you would just apply what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9, you would see that we are in agreement. If it applied to the Jews under the Law of Moses, according to you the man who put away his wife and married another committed adultery. Was Jesus discussing sexual adultery. Since you said “sexual adultery, is a capital offense” then if they adhered to Jesus teaching, Moses’ Law about her returning to her husband would have been nonsense – he and his new wife would be dead. You see, then, why Jesus’ teaching would have CHANGED the Law of Moses.
Next we come to the point that I knew, and warned you, was coming. Robert said, “Here is where we must understand the meaning of adultery, which is a bit different from Webster's definition.” Didn’t I tell you that the next thing Robert would do would be to change the definition of adultery. He said it is, “a bit different from Webster's definition,” Who used Webster’s definition of fornication and adultery? I didn’t! So now after my three affirmative and his three negative articles, and his two affirmative articles, here it is. Now we are told that THE DEFINITIONS of the words fornication and adultery we have been using ARE WRONG. But our definitions are from W. E. Vine’s Biblical Dictionary of New Testament words (that means Mr. Vine is defining porneia porneia (fornication) moichao moichao (adultery) and that without ONE WORD of opposition from brother Waters. But now that he sees his argument that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 is being blown higher than a kite, he wants to change the meaning of adultery. It’s too late now, Robert. You should have told us after my first affirmative that the definition of fornication and adultery were WRONG.
Robert, let me appeal to you as a brother in Christ. Your doctrine is going to lead people to involve themselves in adulterous relationships. Please give it up.
See the whole debate in one file: http://www.totalhealth.bz/smith-waters-divorce-complete.pdf