Galloway/Waters Debate

Galloway's Third 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

Reply to Robert concerning my 1st and 2nd Affirmative:

Robert's reply to my 2nd affirmative can simply be reduced to a 
few points.

1.Defining different and contradictory

2.Using Barnes as an authority for what the Bible says

3.Restates that Jesus only taught the new law privately, not 
publicly

4.Restates that if Jesus contradicted the law in his teaching, he 
would have sinned

5.Tries to base an argument on 1 Corinthians 7, but misapplies 
the scriptures.

1.Defining Different and Contradictory

Robert is trying to make a point of some kind that something 
being different is not the same as something being 
contradictory.  In some areas Robert is correct.  A contradiction 
is a difference, but is more severe than a mere difference.  But 
even Robert's definitions show that this line is vague at best.  
He defines contradiction as "inconsistency" inconsistent either 
within itself or in relation to one or more others.  Actually 
that is also a good definition for difference as well.  So both 
words, based on Robert's definitions, can be interchangeable.

But let me go one step farther.  We are not talking about all 
situations.  We are talking about law.  When we begin talking in 
the realm of law, either we are within the law (authorized) or we 
are outside of the law.  With God's law, this is especially 
true.  We act and live based on what God has authorized 
(Colossians 3:17, Matthew 28:19-20).  Therefore, to step outside 
of the law, being different from the law would also be to oppose 
the law, which is one of Robert's definitions for contradictory.  
So in the realm of law, there is no difference between being 
different and contradictory.

Robert gives a rather shallow example of a country that have no 
laws on hair color, and someone teaches green and blue hair is 
cool.  Robert, if there is no law on hair color, then stating 
what is cool is not even a difference.  To use your illustration, 
if a country said all people must dye their hair red, and I 
choose to dye my hair pink (which is not the opposite of red, it 
is just a different shade (but similar), I would still be in 
violation of the law.  Being different from the law is the same 
as opposing it.

So I find it revealing that Robert states, 
"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."

Brian:
Robert, that is nonsensical.  To teach different from a law is to 
teach contradictory to the law, because if I am outside of the 
law, I am outside and in opposition to the law.

I notice Robert did not deal with salvation issues.  Under the 
Old Law, salvation was contingent on living righteously, offering 
yearly sacrifices through an earthly high priest.  Under the New 
Law, salvation was contingent on believing and being baptized 
into Christ who was our one time sacrifice and became our high 
priest (after a different order than the Old Testament 
priesthood).  This is contrary to the Old Law.   Yet Jesus taught 
this (Mark 16:16, Matthew 28:19-20).

2.Using Barnes as an authority

Robert goes to great length quoting Barnes as his authority on 
many things.  It would be interesting to discover how many 
commentators Robert searched to find one that agreed with him, 
but that would be irrelevant.  I find I don’t use Barnes in my 
studies at all.  I find him somewhat shallow and following the 
main line of denominational thinking for his day.  So what he 
says would simply be another opinion and carrying no weight with 
me.  I think Barnes had a poor understanding of much of the 
principles in the Bible.  So, if you want to quote authorities, 
quote Gus Nichols, Foy Wallace Jr, Guy N Woods, Franklin Camp.  
Men who proved themselves in deep study and knowledge of the 
Bible.  Don’t go to some denominational individual who cannot 
even figure out the plan of salvation to discuss more complex 
issues.

3.Restates that Jesus only taught the new law privately, not 
publicly.

Again, Robert, let me restate that you are being inconsistent.  
If it were wrong to TEACH a new law, contrary to the old law, 
Jesus would have sinned teaching either publicly or privately.  
But, it was not wrong to teach a new law.  Isaiah prophesied a 
new way would be taught, Isaiah 2:3.  So when Jesus taught the 
new law, contrary to the old law, he was not sinning, he was 
fulfilling the old law.  Jesus would have sinned if he had not 
obeyed the old law.  And he kept it perfectly, thus did not sin.  
Robert, you need to show how teaching would be sinful, and you 
have not shown that.  (and this answers #4 above).

Robert thinks 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?”  

Brian:
Robert, let me suggest you don’t understand our proposition.  
Jesus’ enemies are not the issue.  They would be the first to say 
Jesus not only contradicted, but he blasphemed the old law.  
Whether they thought he taught contrary or not is not the issue, 
and whether they brought charges against him immediately is not 
the issue.  As we look at Matthew 19 in my 3rd affirmative, I 
think it will be easy to see that not only the Pharisees but also 
Christ’s disciples understood Jesus was teaching contrary to the 
Old Law.

If you remember, Jesus taught and opposed the Sadducees, the 
legal part of the Jewish leadership concerning the resurrection 
in Matthew 22.  There no doubt he opposed them, and they knew 
it.  What was their response?  Matthew 22:34, “But the Pharisees, 
when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence . . .”.  
They were silent.  They could not answer.  Likewise, Jesus’ 
argument was so sound in Matthew 19, the Pharisees had no answer.

Robert says the Holy Spirit was sent after Christ’s death to 
inspire the apostles to speak and write things to Christians.  

“The teachings that came AFTER Christ’s death were spoken of as 
“The apostle’s doctrine”.”  

Brian:
The apostles were ambassadors of Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20, given 
authority that was unique to them (Matthew 16:18ff).  But they 
received their doctrine from Christ, through the Holy Spirit, who 
both taught and brought to remembrance what Christ taught (John 
14:26).  So the apostle’s doctrine, at least in part was what 
Christ had taught them while living.

5 Tries to base an argument on 1 Corinthians 7, but misapplies 
the scriptures.

Robert wants us to believe that what Paul stated in verse 6 
applies to the rest of the chapter, which it does not.  In verse 
6 of 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is speaking to the statement made in 
verse one, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”  Why?  
Because of the present distress (verse 26).  This was opinion or 
perhaps better phrased inspired advice.  This came from the Holy 
Spirit (7:40) as did the rest of the chapter.  But not all that 
Paul states in chapter 7 is inspired advice.

Verse 10 begins with the word but.  Now we have a change, a 
contrast. He says in verses 8-9, it is good for unmarried not to 
marry.  Good, but not commanded.  Good advice.  Easier to remain 
faithful to God.  But not a command.  But verse 10 says, “But 
unto the marriage I give charge.”  Not a concession.  Not 
advice.  This is a charge.  And he goes on and says, “Yea not I, 
but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband.”  Jesus 
had taught directly on this in Matthew 19.  Paul recognizes that 
this is what Jesus said.  Robert wants us to think that Jesus 
never taught directly on MDR, he was just responding to the 
Pharisees.  Robert, what do you think Paul is doing in 1 
Corinthians 7?  He is responding to the Corinthians.  A large 
part of the New Testament is responses because of problems that 
occurred at various congregations.  That does not make that 
teaching any less teaching.  God simply chose to teach us in that 
manner.

There is a reason that Robert does not want Paul to be referring 
to what Jesus taught in Matthew 19.  1 Corinthians 7:11, “(but 
should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be 
reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not the 
wife.”  Verses 10 and 11 correspond exactly with what Jesus 
taught in Matthew 19.

Now, in verses 12-15, Paul deals with a situation, not a new 
teaching, that Christ did not address.  So he distinguishes, “But 
to the rest say I, not the Lord:”  Jesus did not deal with this.  
Is Paul giving his opinion?  No.  He is giving them a charge 
under his authority as an ambassador and apostle of Christ.  Is 
it binding?  Yes.  Is it of the Holy Spirit, thus of God and 
Christ?  Yes verse 40.  But did Jesus deal with this issue during 
his ministry?  No.  He deals here with a Christian married to a 
non-Christian.  But still what Paul says is in complete harmony 
with what Christ taught in Matthew 19, it is just applied to the 
situation of a Christian married to a non-Christian.

Now, on to the third affirmation.

This proposition is so simply and easy to show, one affirmation 
is more than sufficient to deal with what Jesus taught.  Robert 
seems to be a little frustrated, because I have waited until now 
to deal with the specific passages on MDR.  What Robert did not 
realize, I guess, is that this is so simple and straight forward, 
one has to want to make it complicated (or want it to say 
something different from what it says) to not understand what it 
is saying.  So I chose to use affirmations 1 & 2 to build a basis 
that #1, Jesus established a new law (which Robert agrees with), 
and #2, during his ministry, Jesus taught in opposition to the 
old law in teaching his new law and in fulfillment of the 
prophecies of the old law.  But Jesus practiced perfectly the 
keeping of the old law.

Now, let’s look at a couple of major passages on MDR.

Matthew 19:3-12.  Notice some major points.

1.Verse 3.  The Pharisees, trying Jesus, ask a question: “Is it 
lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.”  I’m not 
even sure that the Pharisees were asking, is Deuteronomy 24:1-4 
lawful, because every cause is not the thought found in 
Deuteronomy.  In that passage the putting away was “if she find 
no favor” and “he hath found some unseemly thing in her.”  

2.Verses 4-6.  Notice, Jesus does not answer, “Yes.”  He 
immediately opposes the Pharisees, “Have ye not read.”  Anytime 
Jesus makes that statement, he is going to contradict what they 
said.  Now in this case, he goes back, not to the Old Law, but to 
the original “Patriarchal” law God gave to Adam and his 
descendants, quoting Genesis 2:27.  Very specifically he states 
that:

a. Two become one flesh 
b. They leave and cleave 
c. God has joined them together 
d. Let not man put asunder.

Now, Robert, is there any difficulty understanding that.  One 
man, one woman, married for life.  That was God’s original plan.  
Does that contradict the question the Pharisees ask concerning 
putting away for every cause?  Yes.  You cannot get any more 
opposite than that.  God said, don’t put asunder.  The Pharisees 
say, put asunder for every cause.

Does this contradict what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states?  Yes.  God 
said in Genesis 2:27, leave, cleave, and don’t put asunder.  
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says, “If she finds no favor” and “he hath 
found some unseemly thing in her.”  A contradiction.  Don’t and 
do.  Can’t get more opposite than this.

3.Verse 7.  The Pharisees then go to the Old Law.  Now, Robert, 
if Jesus was agreeing with them, and if Jesus was agreeing with 
the Old Law, why do the Pharisees go to the Old Law to argue 
against what he is saying?  They recognized he was not agreeing 
with them or the Old Law.  Why did Moses command to give a bill 
of divorcement?

4.Verse 8.  Jesus replies, Moses suffered (not commanded) you to 
put away your wives because of the hardness of your hearts.  
Moses allowed something that was not really what God wanted, but 
God allowed it for a period of time.  BUT “ again the contrast, 
the contradiction.  “From the beginning it hath not been so.”  
Jesus stays with the teaching of God in Genesis 2:27. This was 
God's permanent principle and law.  Moses allowed something that 
was not what God intended from the beginning.  It was the 
opposite of what God intended at the beginning.  Jesus is going 
back to the beginning, so what he is teaching is also opposite of 
what the law of Moses taught.  Robert, it is impossible to have 
Christ agreeing here with the law of Moses or with the 
Pharisees.  The contrasts and contradictions abound.

5.Verse 9.  Jesus restates what he is teaching.  If someone 
divorces, puts away, his wife and remarries, he commits 
adultery.  The exception is if the wife is guilty of 
fornication.  One man, one woman, married for life. The same 
principle as in the beginning.  One exception, fornication.  Was 
that what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 stated?  No. Moses gave permission 
to put away, divorce, and remarry without adultery being the 
result.  But Moses did that (and God allowed that) because of the 
hardness of their hearts.  That was never his intent.

6.Did Jesus mean that a person who is divorced for any other 
reason should remain unmarried?  Jesus’ disciples seemed to think 
so.  Verse 10, “If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is 
not expedient to marry.”  The disciples are shocked.  Why?  
Because Jesus teaching is contrary to what they had been taught 
under the Old Law.

Matthew 5:31-32

A shorter reading, but the same contrast and contradiction is 
seen.  

1.Verse 31.  “It was also said.”  This refers to the Old 
Testament, Deuteronomy 24:1.  “Whosoever shall put away his wife, 
let him give her a writing of divorcement.”  

2.Now, note verse 32.  “BUT”.  Here is the contrast, the 
contradiction.  “But I say unto you, that every one that putteth 
away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an 
adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away 
committeth adultery.”  Jesus says you can’t divorce or sin will 
be involved, the sin of adultery.

Now look at the contradiction.  The Old Law said, if you want to 
put away your wife, give a writing of divorce.  It is 
permissible.  Jesus says, with the exception of fornication, if 
you put away your wife, the sin of adultery will be present if 
remarriage occurs.  What can be more opposite and contradictory 
than this?  Jesus is teaching something contrary to the Old Law, 
going back to the principle that God set at the beginning (Gen. 
2:27) for what will be in the new law.  Paul confirms that in 1 
Corinthians 7.

Now, one other point.  Robert has stated in times past that the 
divorce and the putting away are not the same thing.  That’s odd, 
Jesus seemed to think it was the same thing.  Otherwise he is 
talking in circles here, and Jesus did not talk in circles.

Once again, these are not difficult passages to understand what 
is being taught.  When man does not want to live as God states, 
we can make our lives complicated and sometimes seek to justify 
what we do by changing God’s word.  But these passages are so 
straightforward that it is evident what God is teaching.  Jesus 
is contradicting the Law of Moses by going back to the principles 
that God taught Adam and Eve at the beginning.

So Robert, the proposition has been proven.  Jesus did teach 
contradictory to the Law of Moses, by going back to the 
principles set forth by God at the beginning, which were contrary 
to the Law of Moses.  

Brian Galloway