Galloway/Waters Debate

Waters' Second Rebuttal

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
 
In his 2nd Affirmative Reply to what I last wrote, Brian wrote:

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.

RW:
Indeed it would be great if we could end the debate with a 
similar understanding of God’s word.  Our agreeing on what is 
obvious to most may help us to be “one-third of the way there”, 
but “there” is not where Brian thinks it is.  The truth (“there”) 
is not that Jesus flatly contradicted the Law while LIVING, as 
Brian would have you to believe, which would help in justifying 
his teaching and practice on MDR.  The truth is Jesus responded 
to the Pharisees in such a way that his enemies, at the time, did 
not even think to charge him with teaching contrary to the Law.

I do agree with virtually all of what Brian said in his first 
article, but in his second article one basic disagreement we have 
is regarding his assertions that teaching something “different” 
is the same as teaching something “contradictory”.  From my next 
quote from Brian, you will see that he thinks the words 
“different” and “contradictory” are the same.

First, let us note the definitions pertinent here: DIFFERENT:  1) 
Unlike something or somebody else – not the same as something or 
somebody else. 2) Distinct – separate or distinct from another or 
others

CONTRADICTORY:  1) Inconsistent – inconsistent either within 
itself or in relation to one or more others 2) Opposing – holding 
or consisting of an opposite view in relation to something.  
[Encarta Dictionary]

Brian evidently thinks the word “different” and the word 
“contradictory” are the same, but if the definition given by 
Encarta clearly indicates a distinct difference.  The following 
illustration shows that there is a marked difference in the words 
“contradictory” and “different”.  It also should help the reader 
to make the application to each of these words as they relate to 
the issues and the proposition:

You can go to any country in the world and teach something 
“different” from their law and you may not cause anyone to so 
much as raise an eyebrow.  But if you go there and teach things 
that are “contradictory” to their law then you will be judged by 
that law.  For example, you could go to a country and begin 
teaching that green and blue hair is cool.  This could be 
something totally different from anything in the law and you 
could do it without repercussions.  But, if you begin to teach 
people that they have no right to have hair at all, when their 
law states that such is lawful, and start condemning people for 
having hair and teaching others to do the same; then lawmakers, 
law enforcement officials and citizens are going to take issue 
with you. Why? Because their law ALLOWS these things and you are 
teaching something “contradictory” or the very opposite.

Brethren, the above is simple and basic and we can all understand 
it.

Brian wrote:  
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. > 

RW:
I’m still not convinced that Brian understands the issues 
involved in this discussion.  I shall endeavor to make it as 
plain as possible, deal with the passages that he thinks support 
his position, and then let Brian follow with his concluding 
remarks. At that time he will have an opportunity to explain his 
understanding of the issues and to endeavor to affirm the 
proposition he has agreed upon.  From what I have seen, thus far, 
he has presented nothing that sustains his position.  First, he 
has failed to see that there is a difference in “contradictory” 
and “different”. Second, he provided several passages to support 
his position, which he evidently did not carefully consider.  In 
my response to several of the “but I say unto you” passages I 
shall provide a quote from one of the most respected and sound 
commentaries, Albert Barnes.  Barnes, who probably held basically 
the same position on MDR as Brian, gives an excellent explanation 
of many of the passages Brian has used.  Had Brian read Barnes’ 
explanation surely he would not have signed the proposition he 
signed.

The Issue

Indeed Christ “established” a law that was contradictory to the 
Law of Moses.  However, this is not the issue.  Whether Jesus 
taught some things that “differed” with the Law is also not the 
issue.  It is perfectly alright for one to teach something that 
differs with a law, but for one to teach things that are 
“contradictory” to and AGAINST the Law is another matter.  The 
issue is:  Did Jesus teach something on MDR, while LIVING, that 
his enemies would view as contradictory to the Law, which would 
prompt them to make the charge that He sinned?  I realize that 
the Jews DID make charges that Jesus sinned in regard to other 
matters.  However, those charges were false (they were entirely 
trumped up), but it is important to note that they did not make 
any such charge (that is recorded) regarding his teachings on 
MDR.  There can only be one reason…and that is they did not 
understand Jesus to have taught contrary to their law, which 
allowed divorced persons to marry.  I assume that Brian thinks 
that the Law allowed for persons divorced to remarry (Deut 24:1-
4).  If he does not so believe then I don’t understand why he is 
interested in debating this proposition.  Such being true, we 
expect to see him, in his next post, endeavor to show that Jesus 
did teach against what Moses taught and show that such was 
contrary to the Law, but not sinful.  Brian has already used a 
considerable amount of his ammunition (perhaps better described 
as “beating the air”) but has not begun to prove his position.  
Perhaps he is saving something for his last installment on this 
proposition.

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). 

RW:
Which is most reasonable:  1) That Jesus contradicted the Law 
under which he lived; or  2) The Pharisees merely THOUGHT, or 
slanderous charged, that Jesus had contradicted the Law, when he 
actually did not?  In the above example that Brian presented, 
there is no proof that what Jesus did was tantamount to breaking 
the Sabbath, which was regarded as so evil that death was the 
penalty (Numbers 15:33-26).  The Pharisees did not like the idea 
that Jesus healed on the Sabbath and that He claimed to be the 
son of God, and they expressed their concerns.  However, on the 
matter of Jesus’ teachings on MDR there is no record of any 
objection.  They made no charge that He was contradicting the 
Law.  Why, one might ask?  It must have been because He did not 
teach contrary to what Moses had taught, namely that divorced 
persons were allowed to marry.

Note Barnes’ observations regarding the passage Brian thinks 
indicates Jesus contradicted the Law:

“1st. How full of enmity and how bloody was the purpose of the 
Jews.  All that Jesus had done was to restore an infirm man to 
health--a thing which they would have done for their cattle (#Lu 
6:7 13:14), and yet they sought his life because he had done it 
for a sick man.    “2nd. Men are often extremely envious because 
good is done by others, especially if it is not done according to 
the way of their denomination or party.    “3rd. Here was an 
instance of the common feelings of a hypocrite. He often covers 
his enmity against the power of religion by great zeal for the 
form of it.  He hates and persecutes those who do good, who seek 
the conversion of sinners, who love revivals of religion and the 
spread of the gospel, because it is not according to some matter 
of form which has been established, and on which he supposes the 
whole safety of the church to hang. There was nothing that Jesus 
was more opposed to than hypocrisy, and nothing that he set 
himself more against than those who suppose all goodness to 
consist in forms, and all piety in the shibboleths of a party.”

Brian, the Pharisees “let it pass” because Jesus did not break 
the Sabbath (which would have been sin) and they were not ready 
at this point to use this among their trumped up charges to 
present to their kangaroo court.  By the way, all the charges 
made by Jesus’ enemies regarding wrong doing were false then, and 
when so-called “friends” today make the same charges they are 
still false.

Brian wrote: 
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.

RW:
The New Testament contains the history of Jesus, which is found 
mainly in the gospels.  This history is important, as is Old 
Testament Scripture regarding Jesus.  The gospels also contain 
record of Jesus’ teachings on various issues.  However, to 
overlook the fact of who was addressed, what dispensation was in 
effect and what law was in effect (when Christ taught the public) 
is to violate cardinal rules of hermeneutics.  We need to 
understand that Christ (after his death) sent the Holy Spirit to 
inspire the apostles to speak and write thinks to Christians – 
things from which all people in the future could establish 
authority by what was commanded by the apostles and by use of 
examples approved by the apostles.  These teachings that came 
AFTER Christ’s death were spoken of as “the apostle’s doctrine” 
(Acts 2:42).  It is from the apostles’ teaching that all our 
doctrine and all our liberty in the church are prescribed.  Thus, 
to conclude that Jesus taught celibacy for the divorced, without 
considering the circumstances already noted and without FIRST 
considering what the apostles taught, is imprudent to say the 
least.  Jesus answered questions from the Pharisees while their 
Law was in effect, and His response was not contrary to the Law.  
But Paul answered questions from Christians after the old Law was 
abolished and OUR law was in effect.  Thus, why would one try to 
twist what Paul taught to confirm with what was taught under a 
previous dispensation and law?  Rather, we should first 
understand Paul and then seek to harmonize Jesus’ teaching with 
what He taught. To do otherwise is to fail to apply proper 
hermeneutics.

Brian wrote  
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.

RW:
I have already noted the difference in one teaching “differently” 
and “contradictory”.  One is permissible by law and the other may 
not be permissible but may in fact get you into trouble.  In view 
of the differences in meanings, I have not “said it both ways”.  
I find it amazing that a gospel preacher would contend that Jesus 
“contradicted” the Law under which He lived, for such would be 
not only “viewed” as sinful but would in fact be sinful for a man 
to do.  Jesus was indeed a man and was subject to obeying the Law 
as any other man.  The Scriptures tell us that He did not sin.  
We do not need to conjure up the idea that Jesus could do 
anything He wanted to (to include contradicting or changing the 
Law to which he was subject) to protect the truth that Jesus 
lived a sinless life. 

Brian wrote:  
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. 

RW:
The “heart of the issue” is, Did Jesus, in fulfilling his 
mission, teach something contradictory to the Law?  He did not.  
He made “changes”, as they were written in the New Testament, but 
such could be done and was done without Jesus teaching contrary 
to the Law while living.

Brian wrote: 
#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. 

RW:
There is no indication that the Lord taught something privately 
to the apostles that was contrary to the Law.  I will address 
this further in my next paragraph.

Brian continues:  
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.

RW:
The above argument is based entirely upon assumption.  The fact 
that the Lord had “inspired” such teaching is more likely the 
meaning.  It was Christ’s Law regarding such matters, as is the 
entire New Testament.  The apostles wrote by inspiration.  We do 
not have record of something that Jesus had previously 
specifically taught the apostles on MDR. What we do have record 
of is Jesus responding to the Pharisees who sought to entrap Him.  
I realize most of the religious world has latched hold of His 
words (Matt19), have concluded that He taught celibacy for some 
(though they have no marriage) and then seek to twist the 
inspired apostle’s teaching (1Tim4:1-3 and 1Cor7) to confirm with 
their preconceived conclusion regarding what He taught.  
Nevertheless, there is no reason for the prudent student of the 
Bible to so conclude.  My conclusion here is not out of harmony 
with the thinking of even noted scholars who have taken the 
“traditional” teaching that Brian seeks to defend.  Albert Barnes 
comments:

“Not the Lord. See [1Co 7:6]. "I do not claim, in this advice, to 
be under the influence of inspiration; I have no express command 
on the subject from the Lord; but I deliver my opinion as a 
servant of the Lord; #1Co 7:40, and as having a right to offer 
advice, even when I have no express command from God, to a church 
which I have founded, and which has consulted me on the subject." 
This was a case in which both he and they were to follow the 
principles of Christian prudence and propriety, when there was no 
express commandment. Many such cases may occur. But few, perhaps 
none, can occur in which some Christian principle shall not be 
found, that will be sufficient to direct the anxious inquirer 
after truth and duty.”

Paul said something just previously; verse 6, that was in the 
same vein as verse 10.  Note the various rendering of the 
passage:

[King James Version] (1 Corinthians 7:6) But I speak this by 
permission, [and] not of commandment.

[Webster's Revised King James Version] (1 Corinthians 7:6) But I 
speak this by permission, [and] not as a commandment.

[American Standard Version] (1 Corinthians 7:6) But this I say by 
way of concession, not of commandment.

[Darby's Translation] (1 Corinthians 7:6) But this I say, as 
consenting [to], not as commanding [it].

[Young's Literal Translation] (1 Corinthians 7:6) and this I say 
by way of concurrence--not of command,

[Bible in Basic English] (1 Corinthians 7:6) But this I say as my 
opinion, and not as an order of the Lord.

Regardless of what Paul was thinking regarding his authority in 
what he wrote to the Corinthians his words have the seal of 
approval for inspiration (2Tim3:16). Nevertheless, it should be 
apparent that something was different about Paul’s teaching 
regarding “MDR” as opposed to his other teachings.  What was the 
reason for it?  I’m not sure, but it likely had something to do 
with “the present distress”. 

Brian wrote:
#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. 

RW:
The proposition has to do with things “contradictory”.  I have 
shown that there is a difference in things “contradictory” and 
things “different”.

Brian wrote:  
#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.

RW:
The above question is dealt with below.

The following is Brian’s 2nd Affirmative Containing New 
Arguments:

Brian continues:  
…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. 

RW:
The issue is not, “Did Christ teach only what pertained to the 
old Law, or was his teaching that which pertained to his new 
law…”  I did not sign to debate either of these thoughts.  Brian 
and I signed four propositions, but none resemble the above.  
Thus, the passages that Brian uses to prove the above are 
irrelevant.  Therefore, there is really no need for me to further 
response on this matter. Nevertheless, I will provide explanation 
for each of Brian’s proof-texts.

Brian wrote: 
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. 

RW:
Brian contends that the reason Jesus could break the law (by 
teaching contrary to it) without sinning was because He was who 
He was.   Brian contends that Jesus’ teaching regarding the new 
law that was to come indicates that Jesus contradicted the Law of 
Moses.  Of course, such is not the case because it would have 
been sin (transgression of the law) and Jesus did not sin.  That 
Jesus was to do certain things, to include a changing of the Law, 
was prophesied in detail and what He did was fulfillment of the 
Law.  And, the NEW TESTAMENT contains teachings that are not 
found in the OLD TESTAMENT (which is to say it is “different”).  
But, it would have been neither proper nor needful for Jesus to 
have changed the Law regarding who has a right to a marriage.  It 
would have been improper because such would have been seen as 
sinful by his enemies and friends alike, and it would have been 
unnecessary because the apostles would soon deal with such 
matters and such would be written by inspiration and recorded.

Brian continues:  
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. 

RW:
Certainly Jesus had a mission and did a lot of teaching.  But did 
He teach something that was contrary, or the exact opposite, to a 
law in effect, which would have required the hearers to not only 
disregard what they had understood the present law to teach but 
to practice something else?  

To uphold the proposition Brian is trying to affirm, he must come 
up with a passage that shows that Jesus contradicted (not just 
differed from) the law.  Jesus bringing “grace and truth” was not 
contrary to the Law – it was a fulfillment of it.  

Brian continues:  
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. 

RW:
Brian has said he understands the proposition and the issue yet 
from reading the above it is evident that he does not.  Jesus 
could fulfill prophecy in His teaching things that were different 
from the Law, but in doing so not contradict a thing that was 
written.  Indeed, his life and teachings fulfilled the law. 

I stated previously (as Brian quoted), "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." 

Well, I never said Jesus “taught” contrary to the Law whether 
publicly or privately.  Any discussion of future events that were 
prophesied in the Law would certainly not have been sinful.

Brian continued:  
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.

RW:
The idea that when Jesus said, “But I say unto you” he was 
teaching contrary to the Law is without biblical support and is 
so noted by one of the most respected commentaries.  Regarding 
the above, Albert Barnes saw things differently than Brian:

“Ye have heard. Or, this is the common interpretation among the 
Jews. Jesus proceeds here to comment on some prevailing opinions 
among the Jews; to show that the righteousness of the scribes and 
Pharisees was defective; and that men needed a better 
righteousness, or they could not be saved. He shows what he meant 
by that better righteousness, by showing that the common opinions 
of the scribes were erroneous.”    “By them of old time. This 
might be translated, to the ancients, referring to Moses and the 
prophets. But it is more probable that he here refers to the 
interpreters of the law and the prophets. Jesus did not set 
himself against the law of Moses, but against the false and 
pernicious interpretations of the law prevalent in his time.”

Brian wrote  
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.  >

RW:
Jesus did not teach something contrary to the Law when He talked 
about adultery being something that could be committed “in the 
heart”. Such was true all along.  The phrase, “in the heart”, was 
a familiar Old Testament term that was used over 40 times.  Note 
the following passage: “The words of his mouth were smoother than 
butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, 
yet were they drawn swords” (Ps 55:21).   There was no literal 
war “in his heart” and neither is it true that Jesus was saying 
that actual adultery is committed when one thinks about it.  Yet 
Brian would have us believe that Jesus changed the Law to read: 
“Thou shall not commit adultery in the heart.”  Such was not the 
case because such evil thinking was condemned all along.  

Brian wrote  
(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. 

RW:
Brian should have carefully read the passage regarding which he 
has charged that Jesus is contrasting. Had he done so with a mind 
to see the truth he would have seen that Jesus did not change a 
thing.  Le 19:12 “And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, 
neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.”  

Again, Barnes hits the nail on the head with his explanation.  He 
ably shows that Jesus did not set himself against the Law of 
Moses:

“Verse 33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself. Christ here proceeds 
to correct another false interpretation of the law. The law 
respecting oaths is found in #Le 19:12 De 23:23. By those laws, 
men were forbid to perjure themselves, or to forswear, that is, 
swear falsely.”    “Perform unto the Lord. Perform literally, 
really, and religiously, what is promised in an oath.    “Thine 
oaths. An oath is a solemn affirmation, or declaration, made with 
an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed, and 
imprecating his vengeance, and renouncing his favour, if what is 
affirmed is false. A false oath is called perjury;  or, as in 
this place, forswearing.  Verses 34,35. Swear not at all. That 
is, in the manner which he proceeds to specify. Swear not in any 
of the common and profane ways customary at that time.   “By 
Heaven; for it is God's throne. To swear by that was, if it meant 
anything, to swear by Him that sitteth thereon, #Mt 23:22.    
“The earth; for it is his footstool. Swearing by that, therefore, 
is really swearing by God. Or perhaps it means,    “ 1.) we have 
no right to pledge, or swear by, what belongs to God; and,    “ 
2.) that oaths by inanimate objects are unmeaning and wicked. If 
they are real oaths, they are by a living Being, who has power to 
take vengeance. A footstool is that on which the feet rest when 
sitting. The term is applied to the earth, to denote how lowly 
and humble an object it is when compared with God.”

Brian wrote  
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. 

Again, Barnes explains another so-called contradiction in a way 
that does not indict our Lord with sin:

“Verses 38-41. An eye for an eye, etc. This command is found in 
#Ex 21:24, Le 24:20, De 19:21. In these places it was given as a 
rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye 
for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for a 
burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no 
fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take 
upon himself to repeal it. But, instead of confining it to 
magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and 
made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered 
themselves justified, by this rule, to inflict the same injury on 
others that they had received. Against this our Saviour 
remonstrates. He declares that the law had no reference to 
private revenge; that it was given only to regulate the 
magistrate; and that their private conduct was to be regulated by 
different principles. The general principle which he laid down 
was, that we are not to resist evil; that is, as it is in the 
Greek, not to set ourselves against an evil person who is 
injuring us.” 

Brian wrote  
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. 

RW:
Brian has the right idea when he says Jesus made a contrast.  But 
where I differ is his claim that it was the Law that Jesus was 
contradicting.  The contrast was not with the Law but the erring 
beliefs of the Jews.  Note the comments of Barnes:

Matt. 5:43. “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt 
love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. The command to love our 
neighbour was a law of God, #Le 19:18. That we must, therefore, 
hate our enemy, was an inference drawn from it by the Jews. They 
supposed that if we loved the one, we must, of course, hate the 
other. They were total strangers to that great, peculiar law of 
religion, which requires us to love both.” 

Brian used Le 19:18 as a proof-text.  He needs it to say “hate 
your enemies”, which is what the Jews practiced, but with even a 
casual look at the passage we can easily see that what Jesus 
taught was Old Testament Law, not something new, and certainly 
not contrary to the Law of God. “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear 
any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt 
love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.”

Brian wrote:  
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. 

RW:
Brian, John the Baptist, the “forerunner of Christ”, was an Old 
Testament. prophet who also was instrumental in fulfilling the 
Law.  John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission 
of sins (Mark 1:4), but such was not contrary to the Law, it was 
part of it.  As a prophet, John taught baptism for those who were 
under the old Law.  The fact that such is recorded in the 
gospels, and that it was in preparation for Christ, gives no 
support to the idea that Jesus contradicted the Law while he 
lived. John’s teaching on Baptism was the “counsel of God”, 
regardless of which Law it is to be attributed to, and many 
people accepted his teachings and were baptized.

Jesus did not publicly teach what he told the eleven, regarding 
their mission, which was to be fulfilled after Jesus’ death.  The 
main thrust of his statement was that ALL, not just the Jews, 
were to be taught the gospel in the new dispensation.  Note the 
context:

Mr 16:14 – 16  “Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat 
at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of 
heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he 
was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and 
preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be 
damned.”

“It was long before the disciples could be trained to the belief 
that the gospel was to be preached to all men; and it was only by 
special revelation, even after this command, that Peter preached 
to the Gentile centurion, #Ac 10:1. Jesus has graciously ordered 
that the preaching of the gospel shall be stopped by no barriers” 
(Barnes).  

Jesus taught the eleven what was to take place according to 
prophecy.  It in no way was contrary to the Law. Rather, it was 
fulfillment of it. Such cannot be said about the presumption that 
Jesus changed the Law that allowed divorced people to marry.

Brian concludes:  
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. 

RW:
Indeed, the things Jesus taught were the counsel of God and He 
fulfilled the Old Testament.  But have any of the passages that 
Brian has shown that Jesus taught something contradictory to the 
Law?  Not a one.  Brian has asserted that Jesus contradicted the 
Law on numerous occasions.  Based upon that assertion he has 
further asserted, and would have you to believe, that Jesus 
contradicted the Law on MDR.  Why make such an affirmation?  
Because the “traditional” teaching that persons who have been 
divorced (commonly referred to as “put away”) may not marry has 
no foundation unless Jesus flatly contradicted the Law and 
changed it WHILE HE LIVED.  

Brian promises to show, in his next article, how Jesus 
contradicted the Law in his teaching on MDR, yet without sinning.  
IT CAN’T BE DONE.

Brotherly, Robert Waters