My friend Robert’s position that “put away” in Matthew 19:9 does not mean “divorce” (but only “kick out of the house”) poses an additional problem for him, because Matthew 19:9a shows a man may scripturally “put away” his wife “for fornication” and remarry. If Robert’s theory is correct, a man could simply kick his wife out of the house “for fornication” without a divorce and marry another. He would be legally married to two women at the same time! The law of the land would recognize the new couple as bigamists, as the man never divorced his previous spouse before marrying again. But the couple would be okay in that status according to the logical conclusion of Robert’s argumentation.
In his third affirmative, Robert repeats his foundational idea that Jesus (in his MDR texts) was dealing with “putting away” to the exclusion of legal divorce. But I have already responded to this twice (in detail) with no reply from Robert. Following I repeat my two paragraph response verbatim for the third time because this idea is so very crucial to Robert’s position:
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 only has one more article in this debate. Will he deal with the above this time? Or will he finally just admit Moses allowed “bill of divorcement and to put her away” (Mark 10:4-5, Matthew 5:31, Deuteronomy 24:1), not kicking out of the house without divorce? And now that we’ve learned Moses did allow divorce (for less than fornication), and since Robert has admitted Jesus didn’t allow what Moses allowed (Matthew 19:8-9), then I am hoping Robert will realize Jesus is forbidding divorce for any cause less than fornication, as Matthew 19:9 actually states.
Robert thinks if Jesus taught New Testament (NT) law while on earth, then he contradicted Moses. There is no contradiction however, because two different laws are in view. Jesus’ new teaching on MDR doesn’t run contrary to Matthew 5:19 because preparatory teaching means Jesus was giving law that would be binding in the future; he wasn’t changing Moses’ law until it was “fulfilled” (verse 18) at the cross.
Paul taught in many places (e.g., Galatians 5:6) that circumcision isn’t necessary today, but Moses’ law taught one must be circumcised. Similarly, the law of Moses taught it was right to swear as long as you performed your oath (Leviticus 19:12), but Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:34 it is wrong to swear at all. Are these two examples conflicting? No, different covenants are under consideration.
Robert thought I was saying from Luke 16:16 that the NT law went into effect at the time of John the Baptist. No, I was suggesting what the verse says - that since the time of John, NT law has been preached. Of course, that would have been in the form of preparatory teaching by Jesus until after his death. John 14:26 also confirms Jesus taught NT law while on earth.
Robert wants me to explain how we determine the “transition point” of when Jesus is addressing current questions and when he is addressing future problems (preparatory teaching). Robert suggests if Jesus says “I say unto you” that he couldn’t be giving preparatory teaching. This won’t work as we have passages like John 3:5 where Jesus says “I say unto thee,” but Jesus was discussing the NT requirement of water baptism for salvation. As a matter of fact, all preparatory teaching was “said” to people it didn’t apply to at the time it was spoken. Robert, the way you can tell Jesus is presenting future law in our case is that in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:8-9 Jesus uses “but” to contrast his MDR teaching with Moses’ MDR teaching. And if Jesus is teaching something different than the law of Moses, then he must be giving the law of Christ – there was no in-between law.
Robert says “the phrase ‘But I say unto you’ … indicates that Jesus was taking issue with someone or some group.” I agree. Now let’s notice who Jesus is “taking issue” with. In Matthew 5:31-32 he is “taking issue” (I would use the term “contrasting”) with Moses’ teaching in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jesus does the same in Matthew 19:8-9. This is how we know Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are preparatory teaching. Indeed, Jesus’ teaching on MDR is different than Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This confirms Deuteronomy 24:1-4 doesn’t apply today.
Robert of course is claiming Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does still apply today, but the aforementioned fact that Jesus contrasted his NT teaching with Deuteronomy 24:1-4 proves it doesn’t apply today. Robert calls Deuteronomy 24:1-4 the “universal marriage definition (law),” but he gives no evidence for that. Just like a Sabbatarian, Robert claims that since OT scriptures are “profitable for doctrine,” they must be binding today. But all of the OT is “profitable for doctrine” according to II Timothy 3:16. Therefore according to Robert’s logic, all of the OT (including animal sacrifice, the Sabbath, and circumcision) is binding as law upon Christians today. I am confident the reader can see how Leviticus 10:1-2 is “profitable for doctrine” today in that it shows God will be very displeased if we don’t worship him the way he has specified, but at the same time, Leviticus 10:1-2 isn’t our law today in the sense we must burn incense in worship today.
We certainly can learn from things “written aforetime.” For example, though Mark 6:18 isn’t directly dealing with NT law, we can learn from the Herod/Herodias example that if a person today contracts an unscriptural marriage according to NT law, he must get out of that marriage. He must stop sleeping / committing adultery with his unlawful spouse.
By claiming Deuteronomy 14:1-4 still applies today, Robert is trying to be justified by the law, therefore he is fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4). Robert wants to pick out this one OT law to apply today so he can allow a put away woman to remarry. Robert is making the same mistake as most denominations, trying to go back to the OT for one or two laws. Paul said if you do that, you are “a debtor to do the whole law” (Galatians 5:3). Robert isn’t even consistent enough to believe verses 5 and 10-11 of the same chapter apply today.
Robert mentions Matthew 5:20 that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, and that is certainly true, as Jesus follows up with six cases where NT law is stricter than OT law. In this case, our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees in the sense we are amenable to a stricter law than they were. Robert says in those six cases “Jesus was taking issue with the false notions (interpretations) of the Jews,” but how can this be so when Jesus quotes OT law in all six cases? Since when does a correct quote of God’s law represent a false notion?
Robert says scholars/brethren agree with him that in Matthew 5:21-48, Jesus isn’t contrasting NT law with OT law, but there are scholars/brethren on both sides of the question. Besides, men aren’t our authority; only the Bible is. Yes, we use lexicons to determine the meaning of Greek words, but commentaries prove nothing. Many times even lexicons add commentary after giving their definitions for a word. For example, does Robert agree with the following “scholarly” commentary?:
“the perfect state of all things, to be ushered in by the return of Christ from heaven, I Corinthians 13:10” (Thayer, page 618, #5046)
"on behalf of the dead, i.e. to promote their eternal salvation by undergoing baptism in their stead, I Corinthians 15:29" (Thayer, page 94, #907)
"in Acts 22:16 … this 'washing away' was not in itself the actual remission of his sins, which had taken place at his conversion" (Vine’s, found under "wash")
If there is one thing I have learned in debating the denominations, it is that commentaries can be quoted on both sides of just about every question. Only the inspired word of God is a reliable standard. In our case, Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 24:1 in Matthew 5:31, and then begins verse 32 with the contrast word “But” in order to make it clear his teaching is different than the law of Moses.
Robert claims my view of Jesus’ MDR law only makes things “worse for women and men.” That is kind of like the drug addict thinking stricter laws against illegal drugs only make things worse for him and his friends. To the contrary, God’s law is designed to help people by keeping them away from things that hurt them (like broken homes and adultery).
Robert says it was only my teaching on MDR (not Jesus and Paul’s) that contrasts with the law of Moses on MDR. Robert doesn’t really believe this or he would have to conclude that today …
the adulteress should be put to death Leviticus 20:10
polygamy is allowed Exodus 21:10, etc.
a man must marry his brother’s widow to raise up seed Deuteronomy 25:5
Robert again asserts the woman of I Corinthians 7:11 isn’t unmarried. But the Greek and English text specifically use the word “unmarried” to describe her. And she is told not to marry another, therefore we have a clear case contradicting Robert’s proposition. To be sure, not all unmarried (divorced) people may remarry. Robert’s use of commentaries that deny what the verse clearly says doesn’t help him. The wisdom of God trumps the wisdom of men every time (I Corinthians 1:18-31). Robert has two obscure translations that have “as they are” instead of “unmarried,” but even that wouldn’t argue the woman is only separated. If she was divorced she could still be told to remain as she was (as opposed to marrying another). Should anyone wonder why Robert understands this Greek word “agamos” to mean “unmarried” in I Corinthians 7:8, but just three verses later it means something else?
Robert says “unmarried” in I Corinthians 7:8 “obviously includes those divorced,” but the same word in verse 11 doesn’t. That is strange logic, since verse 8 could possibly only be talking about people who have never been married, but verse 11 can’t since it is talking about a woman who has been married in the past (verse 10). If a married person departs to become “unmarried,” that necessarily implies a divorce has occurred, right? Paul uses the Greek word “agamos” in this chapter four times, and for some reason Robert understands it to mean unmarried every time except in verse 11. Consistency, thou art a jewel.
Robert asks me “If a person is divorced yet bound … but not by marriage, what reasonable explanation is there for your theory that the binding force should forbid marriage?” The reason is God expects us to fulfill our marriage vows (not be “covenant breakers” Romans 1:31). We cannot circumvent that obligation simply by sinfully divorcing our wives. Romans 7:2-3 shows this when it gives the rule that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. Unscriptural divorce is never given in the NT as an exception to that rule. Matthew 5:32b shows the same when it says a divorced person commits adultery when they remarry. Why would this remarriage be adultery if the divorced person were not still bound (obligated) to their original spouse?
About I Timothy 4:4 Robert agrees “some marriages would be wrong.” Once he admits that, Robert’s argument on I Timothy 4:4 falls, because he is acknowledging we have to look elsewhere to find out what marriages we are not to forbid and which we are supposed to forbid.
Robert asks “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?” My answer is that married people can commit adultery with each other (if the marriage is unscriptural). Following is proof:
Matthew 5:32b whoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery
Matthew 19:9a and shall marry another, committeth adultery
Matthew 19:9b whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery
Mark 10:11 and marry another, committeth adultery
Mark 10:12 and be married to another, she committeth adultery
Luke 16:18a and marrieth another, committeth adultery
Luke 16:18b whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery
Romans 7:3a if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress
As seen from Romans 7:2-3, married people commit adultery with each other every time one of the parties in the marriage is supposed to be married (bound) to a previous spouse.
Robert is honestly mistaken when he says I insist “the one to get to the court house first is the only one that may marry another.” What I really believe is a person must obtain a divorce for fornication in order remarry without sin (Matthew 19:9a). And that if a person marries a put away person, they commit adultery (Matthew 19:9b). And repentance would demand a person cease committing adultery (stop sleeping with their unscriptural marriage partner), which would mean adulterous marriages must be terminated (Mark 6:18). For more detail on this point, please consider my “MDR – Must an Unscriptural Marriage Be Terminated?” debate charts at www.BibleDebates.info.