My brother-in-Christ Robert begins his fourth affirmative with scenarios that have nothing to do with the proposition, but only attempt to prejudice the audience. Robert conveniently has the parties of said scenarios repent when he presents himself as dealing with the situations, while they don’t repent when I do. Repentance always makes for easier resolutions.
Let me respond further by saying it does matter who gets the divorce, else the put away woman in Luke 16:18 (whose husband has committed fornication) would be able to remarry. And that I Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches if a person unscripturally divorces their spouse, they will have to remain celibate or be reconciled. I make no apologies for believing what God clearly says on these two questions.
Robert brings up a similar scenario to David murdering Uriah and then marrying Uriah’s wife Bathsheba (II Samuel 11). The reason David could keep Bathsheba as his wife was because her husband was dead therefore there was no ongoing sin (adultery). The difference between that and Robert’s theory is Jesus says adultery (Luke 16:18) is committed in the situations that Robert allows, and since adultery is sexual sin, the sex will have to be stopped; the unlawful marriage will have to be terminated (Mark 6:18).
Robert says Deuteronomy 25:1 and Proverbs 17:15,26 condemn my position, but isn’t Robert the one who is justifying the wicked when he justifies both adulterers described in Matthew 19:9? And Robert condemns the most just (our Lord) when he denies Jesus’ statement
“whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32b).
Last time I pointed out Robert’s position (that “put away” in Matthew 19:9 doesn’t mean “divorce” but only “kick out of the house”) poses a major 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 divorce and marry another. He would be legally married to two women at one time!
Robert responds that the cause “for fornication” simply refers to the fact the couple are in an incestuous marriage, not to unfaithfulness on the part of the spouse. But this tack doesn’t help Robert one bit. Even if this interpretation were correct, that would still say if a couple was in an incestuous marriage, they could just separate without getting a divorce, and marry others. The law of the land would recognize the couple as being in bigamist marriages, as they never divorced their previous incestuous spouses before marrying again. But the logical conclusion of Robert’s argumentation would be they are okay in their polygamous state.
Robert makes a new argument that since Deuteronomy 24:1ff “authorized only the men to divorce their wives” and since Mark 10:12 shows it was possible for a woman to put away her husband, therefore “put away” in Mark 10:12 cannot mean “divorce.” First, Josephus tells us Herodias divorced Philip (in the Mark 6:17-18 case), so it evidently was possible for a woman to divorce her husband in Jesus’ day, even if it weren’t allowed by Old Testament (OT) law. Second, I wouldn’t be so sure women weren’t allowed to divorce their husband in the OT since many times the male is used as the default gender in the scriptures (see my Short Talk outline “Gender Switching In The MDR Passages” at www.BibleDebates.info). But even if it were true that men were the only ones who could divorce back then, that would prove nothing about Mark 10:12 since Mark 10:12 is NT law, not OT law. Even if the OT didn’t allow women to divorce their husbands, the NT does allow women to divorce their husbands (but only for fornication). So Robert’s argument is invalidated.
Robert next tries to counteract my proof that “put away” doesn’t mean “kick out of the house” only (to the exclusion of divorce), by presenting a false dichotomy between the concepts of “allow” and “command.” Robert agrees with me that in Mark 10:3-5 the bill of divorcement was commanded by Moses, but says the “putting away” was allowed, therefore “divorce” and “put away” have to mean two different things. But Robert is forgetting that everything commanded is also (by definition) allowed. For example Acts 2:38 commands baptism, but we could ask, is baptism allowed? The answer is, of course, not only is baptism allowed, it is commanded! Similarly, I Corinthians 7:3-5 commands the fulfillment of marital relations, and at the same time allows it. Such relations aren’t allowed outside of marriage. For something to be required, it must first be allowed.
And we know “precept/command” and “suffered” are used interchangeably here because Jesus said in Matthew 19:8 that Moses suffered something “because of the hardness of your hearts” while Jesus said in Mark 10:5 that Moses wrote this precept “for the hardness of your heart.” Notice what was suffered/precepted because of hardness of hearts. In Matthew 19:8 it was “put away,” while in Mark 10:4-5 it was “write a bill of divorcement and to put her away.” This makes “put away” equivalent to “write a bill of divorcement and to put her away.” This is so because the putting away was the divorce and the bill of divorcement is simply the written record of that divorce (just like a “bill of sale” isn’t the sale itself, but the written record of that sale).
Robert agreed with this point in his debate with Tommy Thrasher when he said “The Law … made provisions for a marriage to be dissolved (Deut. 24:1-2) because of the hardness of man's heart (Matt. 19:8).” Notice Robert equates “putting away” in Matthew 19:8 with the dissolving of the marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-2 (“put away” plus “bill of divorcement”). So there is no difference in “putting away” and the dissolving of a marriage (divorce); Robert’s contradictory claims notwithstanding.
Matthew 5:32 details this concept as there 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 Jesus didn’t allow what Moses allowed, therefore the inescapable conclusion is that Jesus didn’t allow what Robert allows. To recap, in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:8-9 Jesus clearly contrasts his teaching with what Moses allowed. Therefore Jesus doesn’t allow (except in the case of fornication) what Moses allowed, which was “putting away plus writing of divorcement.”
Robert writes “when a divorce is granted … The couple would then not be in the “separated” state in need of reconciliation (1Cor7:11).” But such divorced person would also be in an unmarried state, and I Corinthians 7:11 tells the “unmarried” they should reconcile. Robert asks, “Pat, since you say that a divorced woman does not have a husband to whom to return, why do you apply this text to her?” First, as I said earlier, the condemnation of departing from a spouse in I Corinthians 7:10 would forbid separation and divorce as both involve a departing. So the word “husband” would relate to those women who had only separated, but not divorced. But “husband” would also relate to a woman who had divorced her husband, as the word “husband” in that case would simply refer back to the man that was her husband before the divorce, just like Romans 7:2-3 talks about a woman’s “husband” even after he is dead, referring back to the man that was her husband before his death.
Robert again makes fun of the concept of preparatory teaching even though he agrees it is used multiple times in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (MMLJ). Let me present a parallel to Robert’s chiding. Suppose Pharisee “Joe” made fun of Robert’s and my position that Matthew 24:18 was preparatory teaching. Suppose Joe said “what if a disciple were in the field when they heard Jesus say ‘neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes,’ wouldn’t they have to obey him and not go back home?” Robert would reply, “the teaching didn’t apply right then, but at the future time of the destruction of Jerusalem” (verse 15). Joe responds, “But Jesus said it to his disciples right then. If any disciple ever goes back home, he needs to repent.” We all see the mistake in that logic. And Jesus makes it equally clear Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 didn’t apply then (while the law of Moses was in effect), because in both places Jesus contrasts his MDR teaching (using the word “but”) with what the law of Moses said on MDR.
Robert asks “If Jesus was taking issue with Moses, why did he not say so?” Unquestionably Jesus did say so, specifically. As a parallel, suppose Sarah Palin said “Al Gore says global warming is caused by human generated greenhouse gases, but I say unto you that if global warming really exists, it isn’t caused by humans.” Wouldn’t Mrs. Palin be “taking issue” with Al Gore’s statement? Would Palin and Gore be saying the same thing or something different? Notice also in Matthew 23:1-7 the “scribes and Pharisees … love … to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.” Jesus says in verse 8 “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.” Can’t we see Jesus is “taking issue” with someone by using the word “but,” and that someone was the scribes and Pharisees whose practice Jesus was contrasting with? In exactly the same way, Jesus is “taking issue” with the law of Moses in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:8-9. In both cases Jesus relates what Moses taught on MDR, and then he contrasts his MDR teaching with that by using the word “but.”
Robert claims Jesus is taking issue with the Pharisees in Matthew 5:21-48, but in those six cases, Jesus is “taking issue” with what was said “by them of old time” (verses 21, 27, 33), not what was said by the Pharisees modern to Jesus’ time. In all six cases Jesus quotes from the law of Moses and then proceeds to contrast NT law with Moses’ teaching. Earlier I mentioned the idea of swearing as a test case. Matthew 5:33 correctly represents what the law of Moses taught in places like Leviticus 19:12, that if you swore to do something, then you had better do it. Jesus then contrasts his teaching on swearing in verse 34 (see also James 5:12) with Moses’ teaching on swearing. In the OT you better do what you swore to do, but now in the NT we must not swear “at all” (to start with). In Matthew 5:21-48 Jesus is teaching NT law as opposed to OT law. Most important to this debate is that Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 24:1 in Matthew 5:31, and then in verse 32 Jesus begins with the contrast word “but” to show his MDR teaching would be different than Deuteronomy 24:1.
Robert says “Pat would have you disregard the fact that most sound brethren disagree with him on the ‘contrast’ idea.” But Robert doesn’t let the fact that all sound brethren disagree with him on his little MDR theory stop him from believing it. Robert says “since virtually everyone disagrees with Pat, he hurts his credibility by making the argument.” I know many who do agree with me on the idea of Jesus contrasting with Moses in Matthew 5:21-48, but no matter. The reader will recognize that virtually everyone disagrees with Robert on his pet MDR theory, but that hasn’t stopped Robert from trying to propagate it. Robert wants Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to apply today so he can allow the divorced woman to remarry, but Jesus says things are different under the NT – as verse 32b reads
“whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Robert asks “when did Jesus change from discussing law to giving new law?” That’s easy. In Matthew 5:31, Jesus quotes the law of Moses, and then in verse 32 he changes to discussing new law. We know that because the word “but” shows contrast, not agreement. The same thing occurs in Matthew 19:8-9. In verse 8a Jesus talks about what Moses allowed, but verses 8b-9 change to new law (and Patriarchal law). Again, we know the precise point of “transition” because of the transition word “but.”
Robert again claims my view would have Jesus sinning by contradicting Moses, but Robert doesn’t even believe his own argument. He acknowledges Mark 16:16, Matthew 26:26ff, and other MMLJ texts are examples of Jesus doing preparatory teaching, but agrees that doesn’t mean Jesus sinned by contradicting Moses.
Robert asks if all of Jesus’ teachings were preparatory. Certainly not; passages like Matthew 8:4 (“shew thyself to the priest”) undoubtedly state OT requirements.
Robert claims “Matthew 19:10 clearly proves Jesus’ words applied when spoken,” but it does no such thing. That verse makes perfect sense whether the disciples are commenting about circumstances under OT or NT law.
Robert says I do, but knows full well I don’t reject Deuteronomy 24:1-4 or Jeremiah 3:8. Those two passages are no more NT law than “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” or “Make thee an ark of gopher wood.” Why doesn’t Robert think those commands are “universal”?
Robert says he isn’t “trying to be justified by the law,” but is “using Moses’ teaching to make sense of Jesus’ teachings.” The truth is Robert is using Deuteronomy 24:1ff in a way that contradicts Jesus. Deuteronomy 24:1ff allows a divorced woman to remarry, but Jesus said in Matthew 5:32b
“whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Never has Jesus made anything clearer that the status of a divorce woman: adultery is committed upon remarriage. Robert appeals to OT law to make his new covenant MDR case, ignoring what the originator of the new covenant says.
Robert again appeals to I Corinthians 7:8-9 saying the unmarried (including the divorced) are free to marry, but that passage can’t be referring to the “unscripturally divorced” unmarried, because verse 11 tells that person she may not remarry. And so does Matthew 5:32b
“whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery”.
That should be plain to any honest person.
Robert writes “Pat explains that from the time of John the NT law has been preached. True. But this does not help Pat with the problem of who Jesus’ audience was when he addressed ‘divorce.’” It most certainly does help, because Luke 16:16 (and John 14:26) proves Jesus preached NT law even while the law of Moses was still in effect. Matthew 19:9 is a prominent example of such.
Robert acts like my offering of 32 lexicons, grammarians, and translations mitigates against my statement “The wisdom of God trumps the wisdom of men every time.” However there is no contradiction. God’s word is our only authority. But those of us who don’t know the Greek use Greek dictionaries to tell us the English definitions of the words used in the original. That is far different from letting a commentary tell us how to interpret passages. The fact that all 32 lexicons, etc. say “apoluo” is used to mean “divorce” in the MDR passages is overwhelming evidence Robert’s position that “apoluo” isn’t synonymous with “divorce” is erroneous. Only a person with a personal agenda would take a position rejecting every single one of those definitions.
About I Timothy 4:4 Roberts says “The text is not about whether certain “marriages” are legal; it is about forbidding one to have a marriage at all.” Notice the phrase “at all” was added by Robert to make his point. We can prove anything if we are allowed to add in words in order to make our point. Jesus certainly did forbid some marriages for people who were divorced/unmarried. Reference Matthew 5:32b and I Corinthians 7:11 again.
Christ’s MDR law isn’t hard to understand. The problem is people don’t want to submit to God’s simple truth. The lure of adulterous marriages takes precedence over people’s desire to practice God’s word, just like the perverted lure of homosexual relationships has started taking precedence over people’s desire to obey the Bible on that subject. There’s not one iota of difference between the two issues.
Jesus said
“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:9).
And that’s the NT truth of the matter.