Galloway/Waters Debate

Galloway's Second Affirmative

Proposition: 
Jesus taught new law (contradictory to the Law of Moses) when He 
taught that one commits adultery if he puts away his wife and 
marries another, unless it was because of fornication.

Affirm:  Brian Galloway
Deny:  Robert Waters

Robert found that he found nothing in my first affirmative with 
which to disagree.  Of this I am glad.  Perhaps we can end this 
debate with a similar understanding of God's truths.  Robert 
seems to believe that I do not understand the proposition of the 
debate.  Let me assure you, Robert, I understand the 
proposition.  But in debates, the one making the affirmatives 
gets three speeches (or in this case, three writings).  I don't 
have to state my entire case in one writing, but can build upon 
it.  If you agree with my first article, then we are one-third of 
the way there.

While I understand the proposition you wrote very well, after 
your reply I will admit that I don't understand what you think on 
this.  You agree that Christ established a law contradictory to 
the Law of Moses (and I assume you believe he did so with no 
sin).  You also agree that Jesus taught in his lifetime things 
different, or contradictory to the law (and again I assume you 
believe he did so without sinning).  But somehow when the topic 
of Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (MDR) comes up, for Jesus to 
contradict the Law of Moses is difficult for Robert to grasp.  
What would make teaching on MDR in a way contrary to the Law of 
Moses sinful, yet teaching privately to his disciples the New 
Law, which is contrary to the Law of Moses, not sinful?  Robert, 
you are meeting yourself coming and going here.

Robert said, 
"We must realize that these Pharisees were looking for words from 
Jesus mouth that they could use against him.  Had they understood 
him to flatly contradict Moses they most certain would not let it 
pass."  

Brian responds 
Actually Robert, many times Jesus taught contrary to the Law of 
Moses (or to their version of the law of Moses) and they were 
forced to let it pass.  One example is the number of times Jesus 
healed on the Sabbath and then said he was the son of God doing 
God's work (see John 5 for one example).  On more than one 
occasion, they sought to kill him, but Jesus wasn't going to be 
killed until God was ready.  At times they got into verbal 
matches with Jesus, but Jesus knew God's word back to the 
beginning of time, and knew how it all fit together.  They were 
not nearly as knowledgeable as he was.  At times, they could not 
answer him because they realized he was correct (John 8:1-11), 
but were not about to admit that they were wrong.  At times, 
their fear of the people caused them to hold back.

I can tell that Robert is itching to begin his affirmatives.  And 
he will get his chance.  But he makes one statement of which I 
must disagree.  Robert said, "They viewed Jesus as a man subject 
to the law and anyone who taught contrary to that law (while it 
was in force) would be sinning against it and God."  Robert, I am 
uncertain if you are saying Jesus would be sinning, or if you are 
saying the Pharisees would think Jesus was sinning if he taught 
differently on MDR.  You have already agreed that Jesus taught 
things that were different from the law.  So it sounds like you 
don't believe that teaching differently from the law would 
constitute sin on Jesus' part.  I'm not sure it really matters 
what the Pharisees thought.  In fact, they accused Jesus of being 
a sinner in John 9:16, 24.  And in fact at the end of John 9, it 
is evident they knew what Jesus was accusing them of (of being 
sinners).  But again, they let it pass.  So if your argument is 
based on what the Pharisees thought, that is really 
inconsequential.

Now, Robert states that the New Testament did not go into effect 
until Christ's death.  I will agree with that.  But that has 
nothing to do with whether MDR as Jesus taught in Matthew 19 was 
contrary to the Law of Moses.  As I will show in this second 
affirmative, Jesus taught many things during his life that were 
contrary to the law of Moses, while he was living, and in a 
public manner, even though the New Testament would not come into 
effect until his death.  I think it is important that that 
principle is understood.

Another thing I find hard to understand in Robert's rebuttal is 
the following contradiction.  
Robert wrote:
"2) Did Jesus teach some things while living that was 'different' from the law?  He did indeed."
But then later in his response, he wrote,
"Brian stated that he would focus his attention in the second 
affirmative at some of the specific contradictions Christ made.  
I suppose that if Brian could do what he plans to do it would 
help him in this debate, but if he proves his point he will have 
proved that Jesus sinned."  

Now which is it Robert? Do you agree that Jesus taught 
differently, contradicted the Old Law in some of his teachings, 
or do you not agree that he did?  You have thus far said it both 
ways.

Now, to the questions I submitted to Robert

#1 - Robert, if two laws exist, are from the same government (in 
this case God), but are the same, then we would not have two 
laws, but only one.

#2 - Robert wants this to be a non-issue, but it is at the core 
of this issue.  If God states he is going to have a temporary law 
(the old law), replaced by a better law (the new law), his son 
comes to establish that law by teaching different or 
contradictory things as he makes changes to what God expects and 
commands as was prophesied under the old law, then we are at the 
heart of the issue under discussion.

#3 - Concerning Christ's statement to his disciples/apostles that 
the HS would bring to their remembrance all things, Robert 
states, 
"The things He would bring to their "remembrance" were most 
likely things Jesus taught them privately in preparation for the 
new law. His discussion with the Pharisees (Matt. 19:9) could not 
have been new law (as it is commonly asserted that Jesus changed 
it on that occasion) because he would have had to break the Old 
Law to make such a change. The law was changed LATER - not on 
that occasion."  

Brian here. The only thing I can conclude from this, Robert, is 
that if the teaching was private it was ok, but if public it was 
not?  That can't be right.  False teaching is sinful whether 
public or private.  But Jesus was not teaching falsely.  He was 
teaching things that pertained to the New Law that would replace 
the Old.  And as we will see in the second affirmation in the 
next post, Jesus often contradicted and taught what would be 
under the new law in a public way, and yes without sinning.  I'm 
not sure why you insist that if Jesus taught publicly (but not 
privately) things different from the old law, that he would be 
sinning.  

But your use of 1 Corinthians 7 even supports what I am saying.  
Paul said in verse 10, "I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord . . .".  
Then in verse 12, "But to the rest say I, not the Lord."  
What is he saying here?  Verse 10 involved things Jesus had 
spoken about.  In fact, if you go back to Matthew 19, you will 
find that teaching.  Teaching for the New Law.  But in verse 12 
is a situation Jesus had not spoken to, namely marriage between a 
believer and a non-believer.  Since Jesus had not spoken to that 
during his ministry, Paul would speak to that.  But Paul is not 
giving his opinion.  What he is teaching is also inspired (40b).  
He is just covering a part of the topic Christ did not have 
occasion to cover.  But we see that what Christ taught during his 
public ministry was part of the New Law.

#4 - To this question Robert replies, 
"He would not and did not sin. Again, this is a Non-issue."  

Robert, this is the very issue.  It was prophesied Jesus would 
make a new and better law, and thus by so doing he fulfilled the 
Old Law.  He did not sin in teaching things different from the 
old law.  That is the very issue being discussed here, if you 
will read the proposition.

#5 - With regard to the difference in man's obedience for 
salvation between the Old and New Laws, Robert replies, 

"A non-issue." 

Actually, it only become a non-issue when realizing that Jesus 
taught differently during his ministry about salvation than the 
Old Law taught will answer the proposition set before us.  So 
it's not so much a non-issue but an avoidance issue.

Having shown in the first affirmative that it was in God's plan 
for the Law of Moses to be temporary until Christ should come, 
and then that law would be taken out of the way and replaced with 
a permanent law, the Law of Christ,  and having shown that in 
order for that new law to be separate and apart from the old law, 
if would have to be different or contrary to the old law, we now 
turn our attention to the teaching of Christ while on this 
earth.  The question that our proposal seems to ask is this: 
during his personal ministry, did Christ teach only what 
pertained to the old law, or was his teaching that which 
pertained to his new law, the law of grace, the gospel?  I 
believe the Bible teaches that while the new law did not come 
into power until the death of Christ, Christ taught the new law 
while on earth in both fulfillment of the old law and to prepare 
people for this better law.

First, some specific passages which indicate this.  Mark 1:1, 
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."  
Then Mark begins with a prophecy of Isaiah concerning John the 
Baptist, and then a few verses concerning John the Baptist, until 
we get down to the baptism of Jesus in verses 9-13.  Then in 
verse 14, "Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into 
Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is 
fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and 
believe in the gospel."  What is Jesus teaching here, from the 
beginning of his ministry?  The old law?  No.  The gospel.  The 
good news.  That which is synonymous with the new law.

In John 1:1-17, as John the apostle introduces Christ to us, he 
begins by referring to Jesus as light which shines in darkness, 
making the contrast that John the Baptist was not the light, but 
that Christ was (1:4-9).  If the Old Testament contained that 
light, Jesus would not have had to come to enlighten man.  But it 
did not.  Jesus came, and through his teaching of the gospel, the 
law of Christ, brought the light that man needed.

In John 1:14, we are told that Christ was full of grace and 
truth.  That same grace and truth is set forth as a contrast 
against the law of Moses in verse 17.  "For the law was given 
through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."  
Christ came teaching something different than what Moses taught.  
That was his purpose from the very beginning, foretold by John 
the Baptist as he prepared the way for Christ.  Christ was 
teaching grace and truth.  Christ was teaching the gospel.  
Christ was teaching his new law.  Christ was not in these things 
only teaching the law of Moses.  He was teaching his new law.

In John 14:26, Jesus on the eve of his death, told the eleven 
disciples, "But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the 
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and 
bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you."  Obviously, 
if Christ only taught the Old Law, then the disciples would not 
have needed the HS.  They had the Old Law, which they could learn 
and study.  What Jesus had taught was different, new, and they 
needed to be able to remember it so that they could teach it to 
others.  Now here is an odd part of Robert's logic.  He admits 
that Jesus taught the new law to his apostles.  

Robert says, 
"This law was likely planned and discussed among those who would 
reveal and enforce it (as are all new laws).  This new law 
contains many things that are obviously contradictory to the Old 
Testament."  

According to Robert, teaching contrary to the old law privately 
to his apostles must not have been sinful.  But Robert goes on to 
state, 
" . . that Jesus did not go against the law in his response to 
the Pharisees who sought to entrap him (which would have been 
sin). . . ."  

What Robert fails to realize is that sin is sin whether done 
publicly or privately.  Teaching falsely would be sinful whether 
I taught falsely one on one, with a small group, or in a public 
assembly.  If Jesus teaching contrary to the Old Law was sinful 
in the public venue, it would also have been sinful when teaching 
his disciples privately.

Another passage which shows this same idea is Hebrews 1:1-2.  
"God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets 
by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of 
these days spoken unto us in his Son . . . ." Several interesting 
points here.  First, the Hebrew writer is making a contrast 
between the old law and the new law.  Second he tells when this 
happened.  Christ came at the end of this old time.  Note, Jesus 
did not speak these things after the end of the old time, but at 
the end.  Christ ministry was at the end of the time period 
during which the law of Moses was in authority.  That is when 
Christ spoke these things.

So, there is no doubt that Jesus taught the gospel, his new law, 
during the days he walked on this earth.  But now, notice some 
specific teachings of Jesus, which are in contrast with the law 
of Moses.

Matthew 5:21-22, "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old 
time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in 
danger of the judgment:  but I say unto you, that every one who 
is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment . . 
. ."    A contrast.  Christ goes past the old law (Exodus 20:13, 
Deut 5:17) to say it is not just our actions that are sinful, but 
the thoughts behind or even without the actions are sinful.

Matthew 5:27, "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not 
commit adultery: but I say unto you that every one that looketh 
on a woman to lust after he hath committed adultery with her 
already in his heart."  This is found in the old law in Exodus 
20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18).  Again, the same emphasis.  Not only is 
adultery wrong (the physical action), but under the new law lust 
is wrong (the mental thought).  A contrast to the old law.

(Matthew 5:31-32 is another contrast, but we will deal with that 
in our third affirmative as we look specifically at Christ's 
teachings on MDR).

Matthew 5:33-34, "Again, ye have heard that it was said to them 
of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform 
unto the Lord thing oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all . 
. . ."    This come from Lev. 19:12, Num. 30:2, Deut. 23:21.  
Christ is contrasting, "but" with what was said in the old law.  

Matthew 5:38, "Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, 
and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, Resist not him that 
is evil . . . ."  This comes from the old law in Exo. 21:24, Lev. 
24:20, Deut 19:21.  And again we see the change, the contrast, 
the contradiction in the new law that Christ taught.  

Matthew 5:43-44, "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love 
thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, .love 
your enemies and pray for them that persecute you."  Lev. 19:18 
taught one thing.  Now Jesus is teaching something different, 
something in contrast to what the old law taught.

In this part of the sermon on the mount, we see very specific 
ways in which Jesus taught things that were in contrast to the 
law of Moses.  Did Jesus sin?  No.  Was he teaching differently 
from the law?  Of course.  Time after time Jesus says, the old 
law says this, BUT I say this.  A contrast.  Different teaching.

But what about the matter of salvation?  Jesus' teaching 
concerning salvation was also contradictory to the Old Law.  
Under the old law, salvation came about by one who was willing to 
live righteously under the old law and offer sacrifices for their 
sins.  Even that would not save them apart from the blood of 
Christ being shed, so they had to look forward in anticipation to 
that happening.  But under the new law, Jesus teaches, "He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16).  "I tell 
you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner 
perish." (Luke 13:3). Matthew 10:32 says, "Every one therefore 
who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before 
my Father who is in heaven."  And even baptism, the word not even 
found in the old law, was taught even beginning with John the 
Baptist.  John baptized (Luke 3:3). Jesus through his disciples 
baptized (John 3:22-30).  But in Luke 7:30, we have an 
interesting verse.  "But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected 
for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him."   
Now, where would they have learned about this baptism?  From the 
Old Law? No, but from either the forerunner of Christ, or from 
Christ himself.  This was the counsel of God that they should be 
baptism, and they rejected this.

So, did Jesus teach contrary to the old law?  Yes.  Did he sin?  
No.  Why?  Because he was preaching the counsel of God, 
fulfilling the old law, while preparing for the new law to be 
enacted.  The same thing is true with his teachings on MDR as we 
will see in our third affirmative.