Proposition: The Scriptures teach that Jesus' teachings regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage were not applicable (except Matthew 19:3-8; Mark 10:2-9) until the Law of Moses was done away.
I was reluctant to agree to deny the above proposition after brother Smith insisted on inserting the part in parentheses. I did so after realizing that this is his proposition, and his exclusion of these passages does not prevent me from using them to prove what I need to prove in defending the truth regarding who God allows to marry. That J.T. elected to exclude these texts is indicative of the fact that he recognizes that they very clearly establish the setting and context of the passages as well as the audience to whom Jesus spoke. What J.T. needs to prove is that, although Jesus clearly directed his teachings to the Jews, in the middle of that context (in which he pronounced THEIR practice as sin) he suddenly quit directing his words to them and began speaking to Christians at a later date, i.e. when the kingdom would come. J.T. needs this to be true; otherwise his teaching that Jesus changed the Law, which allowed the divorced to marry another, would have Jesus contradicting Moses, which J.T. recognizes would be sin.
Obviously, J.T. is trying to get around a serious problem inherent in his teaching. While trying to be hermeneutically correct he utterly fails in the end. He has deceived himself into thinking he can say Jesus’ teaching regarding the sin of “putting away” did not apply to those to whom it was directed and continue to follow good hermeneutics. He actually goes against good hermeneutics in failing to observe and follow the law of continuity, context and audience relevance. J.T. will fail to prove his proposition and his doctrine will still have Jesus contradicting the Law, which he knows is an unacceptable consequence for any position.
Now, our differences are not over whether Jesus’ teachings apply to us today. I believe that a woman today who is “put away” by her husband and marries another commits the same sin committed in Jesus’ day. This debate is about, as far as J.T. is concerned, defending tradition—his teaching that goes back to his early years as a preacher and writer, that has Jesus condemning innocent “put away” women to a life of celibacy. Jesus was not condemning “divorce,” which is a process outlined by Moses (designed to protect the women of that time) that includes the putting away or sending out of the house, but was instead condemning the common practice of men (who could have more than one wife) who were apoluo-ing, or sending a wife out of the house. Without the divorce certificate, according to the Law that was under discussion (Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 19:3-8), she would commit adultery if she married or took up with another man. Brother Smith knows that many are learning of and accepting this position, which does not have hermeneutical problems and therefore must be the truth. (At least eight books by various authors of various faiths teach this truth.)
It is unfortunate that J.T. has not already given up his teaching of error that forbids marriage (1 Tim. 4:1-3) and has brethren teaching an unjust doctrine, which God not only does not condone but actually condemns in no uncertain terms. Perhaps this debate will be helpful in opening his eyes so he can, to the extent possible, undo the damage his teaching has done to the church through the years.
Let’s now address some things J.T. wrote:
“By ‘not applicable’ I mean that they were instructions to His disciples that were to become binding when Christ’s church (kingdom) was established.”
Apparently, J.T. is going to try to prove that although the lesson and condemnation of Jesus was directed to the people to whom he spoke, it really was not for them to hear and apply, but was meant to be heard and applied only by people in the church. With this established, he hopes we will be able to forget about the problem that his position poses, which is that it forces Jesus to contradict the Law. Of course, his position has many other problems besides just this one.
“By ‘except’ I mean that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:3-8 and Mark 10:2-9 was in reply to the questions of the Pharisees about the Law of Moses.”
Having admitted the setting and context J.T. has given up the farm. Yet he continues to endeavor to get us to agree with him that in the very next verse, with no indication whatsoever to his hearers, Jesus suddenly quits talking to these people and begins speaking to men and women who will later become Christians, most of which are not even present. Absurd! Of course, J.T thinks that because Jesus elsewhere speaks words that are applicable to all—the Jews and Christians in the next dispensation--that proves that Jesus changed whom he was addressing in this passage (Matt. 19:9).
An important point that J.T. apparently fails to realize is that the “disciples” whom Jesus addressed were present when the Pharisees asked him the questions regarding putting away. The answer the Lord gave the Pharisees shut them up for good on that issue. But the disciples responded with a comment that was not questioning God’s marriage law or his divorce law. It was merely a statement that it would be better not to marry under the circumstance that Jesus had just addressed that related to the exception clause. In other words, it would be best not to marry a woman if she was not free or if the marriage was not legal, such as incest, which would be fornication.
“Let’s observe all the passages (that are applicable to day) that were used by Jesus to teach His disciples on this subject.”
Indeed, but should we not also observe all the teachings of Paul who actually answered questions asked by Christians (1 Cor. 7)? Must we question the applicability of what he said? Can we have and teach the truth on divorce and remarriage if we ignore the teachings of Paul?
Question for J.T.:
Do we find any indication that the Pharisees who heard Jesus condemn their practice of putting away (Matt. 19:9), understood that it did not apply to them? If so, please elaborate.