Robert begins his second affirmative by repeating the same claim he made previously – that if Jesus changed the Old Testament law on divorce, then he sinned by contradicting it. I responded to this extensively in my first negative, but Robert didn’t address one solitary argument I made against his assertion. I pointed out Jesus contrasted his teaching with Old Testament teaching six times in Matthew 5:21-48. Within that I specifically proved Jesus’ teaching on swearing in verse 34 was different than the Old Testament law on swearing as given in verse 33. . Does that mean Jesus sinned by “contradicting” Moses on swearing?
Robert asked me who Jesus was talking to, those present or those in a dispensation to come? This ignores the fact that by definition, “preparatory teaching” is spoken before it actually applies. Robert’s argument here disregards the Matthew 24:17-18 example of Jesus’ instruction I gave that was said to his disciples over 35 years before it applied. I gave Matthew 18:17 as an example Robert would agree is preparatory. I also provided a chart detailing six ways Jesus’ MDR teaching differed with Moses’ MDR teaching. And I introduced John 14:16 and Luke 16:16 to prove Jesus spent much of his time on earth giving New Testament teaching. But Robert ignored everything I said on this, and instead just repeated his argument as if I had never addressed it.
Robert thinks I have a problem because “Jesus was addressing a problem that was current,” but there is nothing to keep Jesus from dealing with current questions (Matthew 19:3-6) and future problems in the same discourse – our political speakers do that all the time. Robert said I “failed to provide evidence that the people understood Jesus to be speaking words that would apply to a future dispensation.” Again, this completely disregards the indisputable evidence that I most certainly did provide, that in both Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:8-9, Jesus contrasted his teaching with Old Testament teaching. In Matthew 5:31 Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 24:1, and then begins his teaching in verse 32 with the word “But,” clearly a contrast word. In Matthew 19:8a Jesus also refers to Deuteronomy 24:1, and again begins his teaching with the contrast word “but” in 19:8b. More than once Jesus explicitly tells us his teaching is different than Moses’ – Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not apply today!
Robert asked me about Matthew 19 if Jesus expected the people “to make corrections immediately”? Yes, if they had been divorcing their wives “for every cause” (less than “uncleanness”), but verse 9 and “for fornication” would be New Covenant teaching.
One final thought to keep in mind about “preparatory teaching”: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written many years after New Testament law went into effect. Those books wouldn’t have served much purpose if all they did was talk about Old Testament law.
Robert again said I Corinthians 7:8-9 proves any unmarried person (including the unscripturally divorced) may marry. My reply to this earlier was that just two verses later (verse 11) we have an example of an “unmarried” woman that is forbidden from marrying another. Robert’s responded that this woman was not unmarried (even though the text says she was), and he gave a couple of non-standard translations that render the phrase “let her … remain as she is” instead of “remain unmarried.” But this won’t wash, because the Greek word translated “unmarried” in verse 11 is exactly the same word (Strong’s #22) translated “unmarried” in verse 8. Robert’s argument here depends upon the fact that verse 8 is talking about “unmarried” people, so why wouldn’t the same word (in Greek and English) three verses later also mean “unmarried”?
Robert says “depart” (“chorizo”) in verse 10 means “separate” and so divorce isn’t intended. Robert has the meaning of this word correct, but what he is overlooking is the fact that divorce is a subset of separation. When a couple divorces, almost without fail they separate. In fact the laws of many states say a divorce cannot be finalized unless the couple has been separated, sometimes for up to a year.
As you would expect, the Greek word translated “unmarried” in verse 11 is the same basic word translated “married” in verse 10, but with a negative prefix tacked on. So if the woman in verse 10 was married (and Robert agrees she was), then after she departed, she was not married anymore. I Corinthians 7:11 proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that at least some “unmarried” people are forbidden from marrying, and that falsifies Robert’s theory.
Robert thinks I have a problem because a cause isn’t mentioned in verse 10, but I would have no more problem than Jesus did when he didn’t mention the cause of fornication in Luke 16:18, while he did in Matthew 19:9. I Corinthians 7:10, Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11,12, Matthew 19:6, and Romans 7:2-3 are all stating the general rule that divorce and remarriage are sinful. Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 state the one exception to that general rule.
Robert asks “If Paul had intended to tell the divorced (who fall into the category of the ‘unmarried’) that they must remain celibate, would he not have done it when he was talking to the ‘unmarried’?” My answer is no, he wouldn’t have wanted to tell all of the unmarried (including the never married) to remain celibate, so he waited until verse 11 when he was only addressing the divorced/separated.
Robert declares “loosed” in I Corinthians 7:27 refers to any divorced person, and therefore verse 28 teaches it is right for them to remarry. But not all divorced people are loosed (free from obligation). I proved this in my last article using Matthew 5:32b, Romans 7:2-3, and I Corinthians 7:10-11, but let me present an additional verse now. Mark 10:11 reads
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her” (NKJV).
Notice this man is divorced, but is obviously not loosed from his obligation to his original wife, because when he remarries another, the verse says he commits adultery “against” her (the original wife). Robert says “take away the ‘marriage’ and the ‘bond’ no longer exists.” But if the divorced man of Mark 10:11 wasn’t still bound (obligated) to his former wife, why is his new relationship cheating against her?
Robert admits teaching against homosexual marriages wouldn’t violate I Timothy 4:4’s censure of “forbidding to marry,” thereby in effect admitting the verse is only referring to forbidding scriptural marriages. Homosexual marriages, polygamous marriages, and adulterous marriages after unscriptural divorce (like Mark 6:18) are not under consideration in I Timothy 4:4. It’s clear from verses like Matthew 5:32b
“whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery”
that God expects us to forbid some marriages.
Robert insists the “only way to make sense of Jesus’ teaching is to understand … that the woman ‘put away’ was still married because her husband refused to give her the required certificate of divorce.” I spent 438 words of my first negative responding to this assertion, but Robert said not one word in reply. Because it is most crucial, I repeat verbatim my two paragraph response here:
One of the more critical mistakes Robert makes is thinking Moses allowed a man to kick his wife out of the house without divorcing her, and that problem is what Jesus is dealing with in Matthew 19:8-9 and etc.. If that were the case, Jesus should have said whoever puts away their wife “except he divorces her” (instead of “except for fornication”). Notice Mark 10:4 says Moses “suffered” (allowed) a man “to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.” So Moses only allowed the putting away if a bill of divorcement was given. Jesus confirms this truth in verse 5 where he says Moses wrote “this precept,” that is, the precept of “bill of divorcement plus putting away.” Robert agrees Moses wrote this precept in Deuteronomy 24:1, which commands the bill of divorcement to accompany the sending away. And just like a bill of sale is not the sale itself, but is a written record of a sale and only legitimate if a sale takes place, a bill of divorcement is not the divorce itself, but is a written record of a divorce and only legitimate if a divorce takes place. So Moses never allowed a kicking out without a bill of divorce (which implies a divorce took place). In other words, Moses required the divorce.
Now let me explain why Robert’s error here is so critical. You’ll remember Jesus teaches in Mark 10:5 that Moses allowed “bill of divorce plus putting away” because of the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts. [Robert agreed with this in his debate with Tommy Thrasher when he said “The Law under which Jesus lived … made provisions for a marriage to be dissolved (Deut. 24:1-2) because of the hardness of man's heart (Matt. 19:8).”] Next, in Matthew 19:8-9 Jesus contrasts his teaching with what Moses allowed because of the hardness of their hearts. Matthew 5:32 details this as Jesus contrasts his teaching with the “putting away plus writing of divorcement” in verse 31. So because of hardness of hearts, Moses allowed putting away as long as it was accompanied by a bill of divorce. And that is exactly what Robert allows - putting away as long as it’s accompanied by a bill of divorce. But in my question #3, Robert agrees that Jesus didn’t allow what Moses allowed, therefore the inescapable conclusion is that Jesus didn’t allow what Robert allows. To reiterate, in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:8-9, Jesus clearly contrasts his teaching with what Moses allowed. Therefore Jesus does not allow (except in the case of fornication) what Moses allowed, which was the “putting away plus writing of divorcement.”
Robert correctly says I accused him of “not understanding the fundamental fact that the New Testament church does not look to the Old Testament for its authority for worship and practice.” Robert replied with “All scripture is profitable for doctrine (2Tim3:16).” But even Robert should know that while the Old Testament is profitable for doctrine, it doesn’t constitute any part of our law for today. For a fuller treatment of this point, see my debate charts on the “Sabbath” issue at www.BibleDebates.info.
Robert continually tries to promote the teaching of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as if it applies today. But as I pointed out in my last article, the fact that he doesn’t believe verse 5 or verses 10-11 of the same chapter applies today confirms he is inconsistent on this point. Robert proclaims “We have all this revelation from God regarding divorce; nevertheless we are told it is meaningless because Jesus made a new law.” A Sabbatarian couldn’t have said it any better.
Robert again states my position punishes the innocent divorced by requiring their celibacy, but he conveniently disregarded everything I said in response to his punishment argument, including my illustration asking if the man too homely to get a woman to agree to marry him is being punished by having to remain celibate. Robert is begging for the reader’s emotional sympathy with this argument, but don’t be deceived – it would also be Robert’s position that even the divorced pervert may remarry. Remember his proposition says “God approves marriage for every unmarried person.” That would even include a man divorced for pedophilia.
Jesus leaves no doubt in Matthew 19:9 and its parallels that remarriage after divorce (for reasons other than fornication) results in adultery. As I argued in my first negative (with no response), Robert’s proposition “God approves marriage for every unmarried person” is directly contradicted by Matthew 5:32b
“whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
The woman is divorced and therefore unmarried, but is still forbidden from remarrying.
Why do so many circumvent the plain meaning of the MDR passages? The reason mentioned in an article by Dan Knight hits the nail right on the head: “Even though we are aware of what the Bible teaches, we can’t seem to reconcile that teaching with a realistic approach to the human circumstance. Therefore, we will ‘wink’ at Scripture, and move on."