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.
In Robert's first rebuttal he challenged me to produce the proof that Jesus was not speaking to the Jews, but to His disciples concerning matters which would not be applicable until His kingdom was established.
First of all, According to God's original Law, putting away and divorce was not a part of God's plan. (cf. Matthew 19:3-8). And even though (because of the hardness of their hearts) God permitted it, It was a contingency law that was granted in order to protect the woman who had no rights (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
Second, if the teaching of Jesus was applicable to those under the Law of Moses He would have been CHANGING THE LAW.
Under Moses' Law, the one taken in fornication (remember, the Greek word porneia translated fornication also includes those who are married - adulterers I Corinthians 5:1) was to be stoned.
John 8:3-5 "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"
Notice what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9 "And I say unto you, `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'."
First of all, if Jesus was directing this to the Pharisees, He was changing the Law of Moses. Moses said the fornicator (adulterer) was to be stoned to death. How then could Jesus tell them to put her away and if SHE MARRIED ANOTHER – but how would that be possible if she had been stoned to death? You see, Jesus would have been changing the law, for he said "whosoever marrieth her that is put away commits adultery."
Much of Jesus' teaching in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was only to be applicable to the church or kingdom.
"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican" (Matthew 18:15-17).
To whom was Jesus speaking? Matthew 18:1 "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He was discussing things that would be applicable to the church/kingdom of God!
John 3:3-5 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
To whom was Jesus speaking? John 3:1 "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews." Does brother Waters think that Jesus was speaking about one entering the Jewish Kingdom which was in existence during the lifetime of Christ?
In Matthew, Mark, Luke and John a number of accounts that pertained to the same subject are given – with different details regarding that subject.
Example: Matthew 26:51 "And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear."
Mark 14:47 "And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear."
Luke 22:50 "And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear."
John 18:10 "Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus."
Observe, please, that in Matthew and Mark's account, they only recorded the fact that the one of them that was with Jesus (Mark's account – "one of them that stood by") drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
Luke adds to this by saying, "…and cut off his right ear – thus adding another detail.
Then John adds to this by saying, The servant's name was Malchus. So, if we just read Matthew's account we would not know either which ear was cut off, or what the man's name was.
This same manner of Hermeneutics (which is nothing more than rules of communication which have been in existence since Genesis 1) – statement, command, binding example and necessary implication – help us to understand the text. Thus the statements concerning Malchus set the stage for our passages on marriage, divorce and remarriage in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
In Mark's account (in 10:2-9) of the Pharisees questioning Jesus about Moses' Law on putting away, Jesus gave almost word for word the same reply that is recorded by Matthew 19:3-9. However Mark also gives some ADDITIONAL information. Mark 10:10-12 "And in the house His disciples asked Him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, `Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery'."
In Matthew 19, who replied to Jesus regarding verse 9? Matthew 19:10-12 "His disciples say unto Him…" Now, in view of the additional information we get from Mark 10:10-12, by necessary implication (because His disciples replied to the statement made) we understand this instruction was given to them for a time when the Law of Moses was done away.
Thus, my proposition is sustained.