Pat stated, “More than once Jesus explicitly tells us his teaching is different than Moses’ – Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not apply today!”
How can Pat say Jesus didn’t contradict Moses and also say he did? Well, he explains it by saying Jesus’ teachings didn’t apply at the time, yada, yada, yada. But since my friend accuses Jesus of contradicting Moses on other issues (“more than once”) he shows himself to be confused, incoherent and illogical. There is hope though. He would be just fine if he would receive the truth and give up his MDR teachings.
Pat needs to understand that the phrase “But I say unto you” does not establish his position. It only indicates that Jesus was taking issue with someone or some group. Who it was is very important and it is easy to determine.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was the focal point of Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees (Mat19). Pat uses this setting and this text as a foundation for his MDR doctrine, yet he asserts that the only Bible text that defines divorce “Does not apply today!” If one does not apply, and BOTH are directed to the Jews, how can the other apply? Pat, if the universal divorce definition/law is to be rejected why shouldn’t Matthew 19:9 also be rejected, since both came from Hebrew prophets, both were directed to the Jews and both applied to the Jews?
The key verse of the entire Sermon on the Mount is Matthew 5:20. “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus stressed that righteousness is necessary to be part of the kingdom. He made it clear that this righteousness must be greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees. Remember, previously (verses 17-19) Jesus made it clear that he was not going to change the Law, and now he finishes setting the stage, assuring there will be no misunderstandings, for what he is about to say. What did he say? There are two possibilities: 1) He took issue with what Moses said, asserting that Moses’ law no longer applied because Jesus was changing it; or 2) He took issue with the scribes and Pharisees who held false notions about Moses’ teachings. That Jesus was taking issue with the false notions (interpretations) of the Jews, rather than Moses’ or God’s teachings, is fundamental and generally accepted by scholars and brethren. Since Pat has used scholars to “prove” his thinking that “apoluo” means legal/scriptural divorce let us see if he will accept scholars when they say something that destroys a foundation stone of his doctrine. Note the resources and men in the list below:
Barnes, Preceptaustin, JFB, Clark, Gill, Mark Copeland and Don Martin. I’m certain many more could be added to the list. Here is a link to quotes from the above: http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-it-has-been-said.htm . Matthew 5:21-35 is the text these men deal with. Pat, these people are very confident that Jesus did not teach contrary to Moses.
Pat said, “…By definition, ‘preparatory teaching’ is spoken before it actually applies.” I have no problem with that; however, it does trouble me that Pat refuses to recognize who Jesus’ audience is. Also, instead of seeing the real problem Jesus addressed, Pat insists that Jesus made new law. But what Pat says is the new law, only made things worse for women and men—innocent people continue to be punished.
Jesus’ teaching on baptism (Mk 16:15-16) is “preparatory” teaching. But clearly it speaks of the future —the time when the apostles will be going out into the world preaching the gospel.
The Lord’s Supper is another preparatory teaching. In saying, “…I will not drink henceforth…until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom,” Jesus indicated that the memorial supper was a future event. The disciples had no authority to take it before the kingdom and without the Lord’s participation. Pat has no basis on which to claim that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19, as is the case with the two examples Pat gave, are merely preparatory. Clearly this nonsensical theory was dreamed up in the mind of someone who was seeking to make his MDR doctrine appear to be scriptural.
Pat asked, “Does that mean Jesus sinned by ‘contradicting’ Moses on swearing?” My answer: No, but Pat sins by accusing Jesus of contradicting the Law of God, which would have been sin had Jesus actually done it.
I’m not ignoring the concept of “preparatory” teaching. It exists, but not in the “divorce” texts. Pat is ignoring the fact that Jesus specifically addressed the Jews and their current problem in Matthew 19. He is also ignoring the fact that every word in the text indicates that what Jesus said applied to the Jews, but nothing indicates that it was meant to apply only in the future. Pat’s only argument is that some texts are indeed “preparatory” teaching. The argument is so weak, and so easily defeated, it hardly warrants a reply.
Pat said, “I also provided a chart detailing six ways Jesus’ MDR teaching differed with Moses’ MDR teaching.”
No, Pat, you provided a chart detailing six ways YOUR MDR teachings differ from Moses’. Your teachings also differ from the teaching of both Jesus and Paul, and goes against justice, reason and logic; so I don’t really think your argument warrants a detailed reply.
An argument was made using Luke 16:16. I’m not sure what Pat intended by his use of this scripture. Pat, are you suggesting that the New Testament went into effect when John was born?
Next Pat used John 14:26 to make a point that I agree with, but which neither hurts my position nor helps his substantially.
“Robert thinks I have a problem because ‘Jesus was addressing a problem that was current….’”
My argument was not just that it was a “current” issue, but that it was current and was specifically addressed to the Jewish men. Pat may have some wiggle room on the “current” issue, but none in the matter of who Jesus’ audience was or when Jesus’ teachings were relevant. It is clear to whom Jesus addressed his comments, and Pat can’t change it no matter how much he wants it to be different. Pat hurts his credibility by having made this flimsy argument in the first place.
Pat stated, “…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.”
I have heard brethren defend the Jews on law keeping, assert that Jesus contradicted the Law, defame great scholars and great translations, and now Pat compares the Lord’s actions to that of politicians. How far men will go in their defense of tradition!
“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.”
Pat, please explain how you determine the transition point from Jews being addressed to Christians in the future being addressed. Maybe I have misunderstood this all along. When Jesus said, “And I say unto you” maybe he really didn’t mean “you.” Perhaps he meant people that were not present and who would live under his new law after his death. Why, that has to be the case because of the COC teachings on MDR. Indeed, our tradition is the standard and any view that contradicts it has to be wrong. (A little satire.)
Question for Pat: If the men (Jews) had been “apoluo”-ing (using the common meaning of the word) their wives—committing adultery against them and causing them to commit adultery, as well as the person they married—would they need to stop?
Pat states that the Gospels, “…Wouldn’t have served much purpose if all they did was talk about Old Testament law.” True. But I never said anything kin to that.
Pat makes no mention of the scholars that I quoted to show that “unmarried,” in 1 Corinthians 7:11, refers to those merely separated and not divorced. The men I quoted are highly respected and their words were clear. Pat did note that the two translations were not well-known. Well, they are better known than Pat who says they are wrong!
The text says if the woman departs (separates) she should remain unmarried or be reconciled. My friend says I’m denying what the text says. No, I’m denying the illogical interpretation that Pat has made of the text because he refuses to consider the context, the language and scholarship. He needs SOMETHING from the chapter to contradict Paul’s clear commands to “let them marry.” Otherwise, the reader will perceive his position to be unsupported.
Pat, do you agree that in some cases what a passages appears to say is not what it means? In your personal teachings have you not had to deal with clear statements that seem to support errant teachings? In doing so do you not demonstrate the need to use good hermeneutics? If/when a person refuses to hear your reasoning do you, at some point, perceive that he does not have an open mind or is not willing to give up his tradition?
The Greek word for unmarried is “agamos”—the same word that is used in verse 9. But we all know a word can have different meanings based upon its usage. In verse 9, the “unmarried” obviously includes those divorced. Paul commands: “LET THEM MARRY.” But in verse 11 the context is a woman who “departs” or leaves her husband. “Reconciliation” (not marriage) is the solution here. Paul evidently understood that a divorce ends the marriage and therefore did not deal with such situations.
Thayer said “agamos” CAN mean “single,” which is not the same as divorced. “He that is unmarried [agamos] careth for the things that belong to the Lord” (1Co 7:32b). Are we to conclude that Paul had reference only to those who were divorced? No, here “unmarried” includes the “single” person, as Thayer suggested. A single person can marry. A wife who just left may be single but she may not marry just anyone—only be reconciled to her husband.
The Greek New Testament by Bloomfield - : "From the use of ?ata?? [reconcile] and the air of the context it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not, arising from misunderstandings or otherwise."
Pat, is Bloomfield wrong?
A number of versions translate “agamos” as “single” (CEV, GNB, GW) and at least two “as they are,” i.e. in the separated state.
Pat says that “Divorce is a subset of separation.” I wonder why Pat cannot see that the Jews had problems with separation, a “subset” of divorce.
Pat wrote, “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.”
If we consider the context, the language and what the scholars say, the woman was actually still married. Thus, she had a marriage. She needed only to “reconcile.” Pat ignores the gist of Paul’s teaching, including clear commands, and asserts that Paul is guilty of “forbidding to marry,” which is the very thing Paul himself called “doctrines of devils.” Unbelievable!
The Cause
Luke, Mark, John and Paul ALL omit the “cause.” Therefore it evidently was not a greatly important point. Pat asserts that a divorce does not do what God intended it to do unless it is initiated (by the one that gets to the court house first) for a certain “cause.” The cornerstone of Pat’s doctrine is the false idea that the exception clause refers to unfaithfulness by the spouse. Jesus, in the one Gospel, simply noted that if the sending away by the man was due to fornication [which likely referred to an illegal/unscriptural marriage (Mk6:18; 1Cor5:1))] it would not be “adultery against her.”
Pat’s doctrine encourages divorce proceedings. He has ignored this but he knows it does, yet he closes his eyes to the “red flag” that should tell him he is on the wrong track.
Pat asks, “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?” Pat, he was not “cheating”—he could have more than one wife. I have previously explained why it is adultery. The marriage (bond) still existed because he only sent her away—there was no legal divorce.
Question for Pat: If a person is divorced yet “bound” to the sender legally, but not by marriage, what reasonable explanation is there for your theory that the binding force should forbid marriage? Please answer without using circular reasoning.
Pat continues to try to get around the “forbidding to marry” problem. He says, “…God expects us to forbid some marriages.” But this is not the issue. Indeed, some marriages would be wrong. But Pat forbids some people who have NO marriage to have a marriage. That is what Paul says is wrong and it is what Pat is guilty of. Paul’s additional teachings, like “let them marry” etc., are consistent with his letter to Timothy.
“Robert insists that 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.’”
Moses commanded the certificate to be given, which was confirmed by Jesus. But Moses suffered the putting away in the sense that there was no legislation or punishment for it. Jesus called it adultery “against her.” In view of the fact that reconciliations take place after separation (1Cor7:10-11), is it not reasonable that God would not give a law that punished one for departing or sending? It would encourage divorce and close the door to the possibility of reconciliation.
Question for Pat: If there is a legal divorce (which we agree ends the marriage) how can marrying result in adultery, since adultery is something that married people cannot do with each other?
Moses commanded the men to legally divorce, as opposed to merely sending away. As was often typical of the Jews, they did not obey for various selfish/mean reasons, which brought about the problem that Jesus addressed: “putting away.”
Pat says Robert “Allows - putting away as long as it’s accompanied by a bill of divorce.” Separation can be a sinful act. Initiating divorce proceedings can be a sinful act. The Jewish practice of sending a woman out without the certificate was/is treachery and worse than divorce. Again, Pat encourages divorce by insisting that the one to get to the court house first is the only one that may marry another.
Pat continues to deny 2Tim3:16, regarding “all scripture” and the universal marriage definition (law). He admits Moses’ teaching is “profitable for doctrine” even while rejecting it. Figure that out.
The Homely Man
This is different. We are talking about making a law that forbids marriage versus a man’s not being diligent to find a woman who is also “homely.” That Pat’s doctrine punishes innocent people is an irrefutable fact.
Pat mentioned Dan Knight’s excellent comment about “winking” at scripture. Knight teaches the truth on MDR. Here is a link to some of his work: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Focus_On_Truth/message/28542