Proposition: Jesus' teachings in the ’MDR‘ texts, such as Matthew 19:3-12, were applicable to the Jews.
I have known brother Waters for more than 25 years. I have always considered him to be an honest person. That said, I cannot understand why (unless he is blinded by the theory he is endeavoring to prove) he makes some of the statements he does in his last affirmative.
For example, in his third affirmative, in paragraphs 2-3, brother Waters makes the following statement: “We are supposed to understand that Jesus did change the Law,…” No, I didn’t say that Jesus changed the Law of Moses. I said, If what Jesus taught was applicable to the Jews who were under the Law at that time, then He was guilty of changing the Law.
He says, “J.T.’s efforts to prove his arguments pose two huge problems. One, the disciples were Jews (Pharisees and Sadducees) who were amenable to the Law just as Jesus was, and therefore what Jesus said to them had to have been applicable.” My reply was, what about Matthew 18:15-17? And, back in his second negative his reply was:
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? BECAUSE, Robert, IT WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE LAW. Let’s read it again..
Matthew 18:15-17 “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Ten years ago if anyone had made the above statement, Robert would have ridiculed him, perhaps questioned his sanity and asked the question, “What church was in existence then?”
Again, I brought up the question about Nicodemus and the new birth. Robert said:
“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.” So, I suppose Nicodemus was baptized into Christ for the remission of sins and translated into the kingdom as were the Colossians in 1:13 – WHEN THE KINGDOM DID NOT EVEN EXIST. Robert! Robert!
In paragraphs 4-7 brother Waters discusses Mark chapter 10. He compares what Jesus said in Mark 10:11 to Jeremiah 3:9. “And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.” How do we know that a word is used figuratively instead of literally? When there is something in the text or context that makes the impossible for it to be literal. As you can see from Jeremiah 3:9, adultery (the sex act) is impossible.
Now, what is there in the text or context of Mark 10:11 that would make the word adultery figurative? It doesn’t make any difference. Robert is going to set aside the rules of grammar and anything else that stands in his way and disproves his theory on putting away and remarriage. Everything in the Gospels must be applicable to the Jews under the Law in order for him to sustain his theory. Everything that Jesus talked about regarding putting away and remarriage was applicable to those who were under the Law of Moses. Every instance of Jesus’ teaching the things concerning the “kingdom of heaven” used 32 times in Matthew and in the Sermon on the Mount would be applicable. Also, the “kingdom of God” (used 54 times in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) is often used with reference to Christ’s kingdom or church. In view of Robert’s teachings thus far, if he is consistent, he would also apply them all to the Jews who were under Moses’ Law. Robert then is not only teaching error regarding putting away and remarriage, but he is also teaching error on all the teachings of Jesus in the gospels that refer to His church or kingdom. They were not applicable to anyone until Christ’s kingdom was established, Robert. Look at yourself and these positions you are taking because you are trying to establish your theory.
In paragraph 8, the gift that I mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (of which Robert remarks) was the contingency law that was given in order to protect the women who were being put away with no means of livelihood. God remedied that by giving a law through Moses that would demand that the one doing the putting away would first give her a writing of divorcement so she could marry another man and her first husband could hold no claim to her. But Jesus told the Jews it was because of the hardness of their hearts that God gave that law and permitted them to do so – but “from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8).
In paragraph 9-11, Robert talks about the “death penalty” and cites John 8:2-9. This was/is the story of the Jews bringing an adulterer to Jesus and asking Him if Moses’ Law should be applied. Moses Law pronounced the fact that two people who were caught in the act of fornication or adultery were to be stoned to death. Now you can cough and grin all you want to, but it won’t change the fact that what Jesus taught changed the Law of Moses which was only given because of the hardness of the hearts of those under the Law of Moses.
Let’s look at Matthew 19:9 again. Let’s notice the rule that Jesus gave. Matthew 19:9 “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife… and shall marry another, committeth adultery…” But, the Lord made an exception “except it be for fornication.” So, according to brother Water’s position that Jesus’s teaching was to correct the Pharisees teaching concerning the Law of Moses, Jesus said (by implication) if one put away his wife for fornication (sexual immorality) and married another he did not commit adultery.
In my first affirmative I defined fornication. “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).” Now since Robert didn’t challenge the definition, I presume he was in agreement with it.
Now in view of what Jesus said (and if Robert is correct in his assumption that Matthew 19:9 was given to explaining to the Jews the Law of Moses) let’s see if we can sum it up.
Regarding Mark 10:11, Robert says the man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery “against his first wife.” That is difficult for me to understand in view of the fact that Robert also said “. 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.” (paragraph 4). Why would Jesus teach in Mark 10:11 that the man was committing adultery against his first wife if he married another since “at that time the Law allowed men to have more than one wife?” Whatever is good for Robert ought to be good for J.T.
It is shameful and sinful when there is division among brethren on this or any other Bible question. Robert often refers to the position I hold as the “traditional position.” Well Paul told the Thessalonians, “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:13-15 ). When someone asks me what the Scriptures teach I simply ask them to read what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9. I have yet to find a person who couldn’t understand it UNLESS they had some expert help from someone like Robert.