Proposition: Jesus' teachings in the ’MDR‘ texts, such as Matthew 19:3-12, were applicable to the Jews.
My proposition in this debate (above) was affirmed when I showed the context, continuity and audience relevance of Matthew 19:3-12. Nevertheless, I must deal with J.T. Smith’s questions and objections and make a few other observations.
J.T. made two arguments in his affirmative, and to resort back to them is about all he has to use to rebut my affirmative. In the first argument he asserts that Jesus could not have been talking to the Jews because this would mean he was contradicting the Law. In the second argument, which is valueless unless the first one is valid, he seeks to avoid the aforementioned consequence by asserting that Jesus switched from addressing the "Jews" to addressing the "disciples," and therefore Jesus' words didn't apply to the Jews. We are supposed to understand that Jesus did change the Law, but since he addressed his disciples on another occasion, the Law didn't apply until the new kingdom came. J.T. also argued that if we consider other gospel accounts his argument becomes apparent.
J.T.’s efforts to prove his arguments pose two huge problems. One, the disciples were Jews (Pharisees or Sadducees) who were amenable to the Law just as Jesus was, and therefore what Jesus said to them had to have been applicable. Two, Jesus addressed the enemies of Jesus in Matthew 19:9, but he had first addressed the "disciples" in Matthew 5. So, even if we were to grant the "disciples were not Jews” absurdity, J.T.'s effort to force Jesus' teaching to apply only in the new kingdom fails because Matthew deals with BOTH scenarios.
Mark 10:11
Now, I agree that sometimes we can get information from another gospel that helps explain the one we are considering. But instead of using and learning from the information found in the other gospel, J.T. instead seeks to explain it away. For example, in Mark 10:11, Jesus explained that the sin the men were committing was "against her." (See Jer. 3:9) But in his effort to make this text harmonize with his doctrine, J.T. abandons reason and scholarship [versions, commentaries (see Henry), etc.], and contradicts Jesus by asserting that "her" is referring to the woman the man marries. J.T. insists that the man commits sexual adultery with this new wife in the new marriage. That could not be the case because at that time the Law allowed men to have more than one wife. Thus, no adultery was committed whether apoluo means divorce or "put away." Furthermore, nothing in any of the accounts, except this one, sheds any light on whether the men were committing adultery, and Mark's account says the sin is "against" the man’s previous wife rather than "with" the woman in the second marriage. Let us look at the text closely and we will see that all of J.T.’s arguments, and his basic position on “MDR,” are defeated by this passage.
First, we must not overlook the fact that in Mark 10:1-9 Jesus says basically the same thing that is recorded in Matthew 19:3-8. Mark's account has Jesus dealing with questions from Jews, who perhaps were not able to hear Jesus well, or who, not fully understanding, needed to hear further explanation. And it is here that Jesus made a comment that is exceedingly helpful. Keep in mind the fact that the disciples were Jews and Jesus' message was therefore applicable to them.
Mark 10:10 "And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter." These Jews asked about the SAME matter--the one that was directed to the enemies of Jesus. What did Jesus mean when he said the men who put away their wives and married another committed adultery? Jesus' response (verse 11) answers concerns about the "death penalty" for men who sent away their wives.
11 "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." Put away whom? His wife. Commits adultery against whom? Is the woman against whom adultery is committed the wife that was put away, the new wife, or someone else not alluded to by Jesus? If we are willing to cast aside error we will be willing to believe "her" is the woman who is put away, because that is what the text says. And since nothing sexual is involved in the evil action of putting away, Jesus' further explanation destroys J.T.’s thinking that adultery is only a sex act. But J.T. objects to this reasoning. He said, "The rules of grammar will not allow his [my, r.w.] conclusion." No, rules of grammar and common sense require us to understand that “her” (the wife who is sinned against) is the first wife, the one put away. The truth is, the rules of "defend tradition at all cost" are at play here.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
J.T. asserted that "Deuteronomy 24:1-4 has not one single thing to do with Matthew 19:9 or vise-versa." Really? That might be true if it wasn't for the fact that it was the focal point of the discussion! Jews said, "Moses suffered," and Jesus asked, "What did Moses command you?" Ignore the relevance of this text and you break a very important rule for Bible study, which will always result in error. J.T.'s own statement about this text contradicts his accurate declaration that "It was a great gift to the women who were being put away..." What "gift"? The divorce law that J.T. says has nothing to do with Matthew 19:9. J.T. understands that “put away” is merely a part of this law and not THE divorce itself.
Death Penalty (John 8:2-9)
The men who were doing the putting away were not committing a capital offense, but if the put away woman married another both she and the man she married would commit sexual adultery, and this is true because she still belonged to the man who sent her out. If the Law was enforced these adulterers would face death. Men who were prudent would avoid marrying a woman put away but not divorced. After all, other women were available to them—women who could lawfully be their wives.
Let us now take a look at the text:
First, note that, "all the people came unto him"; thus, unbelieving Jews and believing Jews (disciples) were there to hear him. Second, enemies who sought "to accuse him" "brought unto him a woman taken in adultery." They said she was caught "in the very act," meaning sexual adultery. They stated that the Law commanded that she should be stoned, and then asked, "What do you say?" Jesus didn't deny the need to carry out the Law but replied, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
J.T. sought to find inconsistency with my position saying, "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." No, that part, Deuteronomy 24:4 (which, according to J.T., is not supposed to have anything to do with Matthew 19:9, cough! and grin), forbad men to take back a woman that had actually been divorced and had married another--"legal" wife swapping.
J.T. refuses to comment on Paul's clear teaching that I noted, yet he tried to make an argument from Paul’s teachings regarding a word that Paul used that is similar to one Jesus used. I'll respond in kind and save my answer for the next debate, which will deal with Paul's teachings to Christians. We shall then see if J.T. will hold to his principles, or use his interpretation of Jesus' teachings to force Paul's teaching to harmonize with his doctrine.
I have no problem with J.T.'s quotation of the meaning of fornication. But he conveniently supplied only one meaning from Vine's definition of adultery. Vine notes that not all adultery is sexual, as I proved. Surely this observation does not make me guilty of "redefining words." (see www.totalhealth.bz/adultery.htm )
My current belief on “MDR” is the result of much study that involved the meticulous use of good hermeneutics. On the other hand, J.T. is determined to defend the error that has plagued the church in many ways, evident by the fact that he ignores some of the most basic Bible study rules. His doctrine, instead of helping women, as he asserted Jesus' teaching did for the Jewish women, does basically the same thing to women the Jews were doing, which Jesus said was sin. J.T.’s interpretation of Jesus' teaching is that a woman who is divorced will commit adultery if she marries another. Thus, he is guilty of "forbidding marriage" for a woman who has been freed by divorce and who needs marriage to "avoid fornication" (1 Cor. 7:2). His main argument is based upon what he sees as an evil consequence, yet he is willing to accept a consequence that is just as abhorrent--that Jesus gave a law that requires punishing the innocent who is divorced against his/her will (Prov. 17:26). The teaching I have presented in this debate does not have such problems, therefore it must be the truth. Human tradition enslaves but truth frees; therefore why must some preachers labor to keep us enslaved? J.T., why not obey God who says "let them marry"?