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.
My formal question, stated in my first rebuttal, was: "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?" By that I was hoping, if such an indication existed, that J.T. would point out something in the context of the conversation that would answer my question. But that did not happen. Also, my original question was different. He didn't quote my question right nor did he answer it. I pointed out that the Pharisees heard Jesus condemn their practice. This was not denied. Since Jesus condemned the Jew's practice of putting away, his condemnation obviously applied to them. Are we to suppose that J.T. would have us believe that those sinners, who committed adultery against their wives, didn't need to repent of that sin immediately after learning of the sin? Who can deny they needed to repent? J.T. didn't. He just avoided the point. He did assert (with no proof) that the Pharisees didn't apply it to themselves. And he accurately stated that nothing Jesus taught would change nor add to the Law. But he obviously had no answer for the argument.
J.T. makes an argument using John 4:19-21, where Jesus told a woman that "the hour cometh" when people would not worship in Jerusalem. J.T. asks, "Was that instruction applicable then to the Jews? Were they to quit worshiping in Jerusalem THEN?" The instruction was applicable to the Jews because it was said to them. They were not to quit worshiping in Jerusalem immediately because "the hour" had not yet come.
J.T. made an argument using Mark 10:10. He pointed out that the disciples asked Jesus "again" about the matter. J.T. has no valid argument here because the disciples were Jews who lived under the Law, and were amenable to it just as Jesus was.
J.T. tried to make an argument from Matthew 19:10--the disciples’ comment. Again, the disciples were Jews.
Brother Smith made the argument that we don't get all the truth from one gospel account. That is true, but due to the fact that nothing else said in the other gospels helps him (because the disciples were Jews), this argument fails.
Next, J.T. asserts that I failed to consult other gospels in studying divorce and remarriage. That is so obviously false, based upon my writings in my recent book "Put Away But Not Divorced" and numerous other writings, the charge is hardly worth a reply.
J.T. wrote, "He just can’t afford to admit that Mark’s account of this same occurrence shows conclusively that Jesus was speaking to his disciples and not the Pharisees as in the preceding verses of Matthew 19." Again, this is not true. Jesus was speaking to his disciples, but they were Jews and therefore amenable to the Law. J.T. needs them to be Christians, composed of Jews and Gentiles, in the church age.
J.T. said, "...Matthew 19:9 would have changed the Law of Moses which Jesus said He did not come to do. Matthew 5:17 ’Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.’” This is true, and is a very powerful argument that I have used for years in convincing others of the error of the very doctrine that J.T. is trying to defend--that the divorced commit adultery when they marry. Of course, J.T. thinks this argument does not hurt his teaching; but since he has utterly and completely failed to sustain his proposition, this very argument, to which he has ascribed, demands he make a change in his teaching and practice.
J.T. admits that "put away" (apoluo) and divorce are not the same thing. This can mean only one thing; Jesus did not say a divorced woman commits adultery when she marries another. It simply means she does so if she is only "put away," which is what the text says and which makes perfect sense. J.T. then asserts that I'm trying to make "apoluo (put away)" equal to "porneia (fornication)." That is not true. Apoluo means to repudiate, send away and put away. This is something that commonly happens in marriage, especially in parts of the world where men treat the women like slaves. But after sending his wife away a man may decide to take her back, and may do so unless she married another man (Deut. 24:1-4). Fornication, committed when the marriage is unlawful, is the exception that Jesus gave. He was saying it is not wrong to put away in such cases--no certificate is needed.
Regarding my explanation of "what Moses suffered" J.T. said a "writing of divorcement" was necessary "before she could be dismissed from the house..." OK, that is true. That is what was "commanded." Therefore, something else must have been "suffered." J.T. then said, "To try to make Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 et al, be an explanation of Moses’ law on divorce and remarriage is ludicrous." No, J.T.'s teaching is what is ludicrous. Jesus was speaking to men who were committing the sin of "putting away" and everything he said was in complete harmony with Moses.
Brother Smith, I thought you were implying that "fornication" in the exception clause was adultery, as many seem to think, but which is error. If you were not, I apologize for the misrepresentation and applaud you for getting it right.
I would like to note that J.T. did not reply to my comments regarding his failure to follow good hermeneutics. I shall go there in my affirmative articles.
The issue in this discussion is whether or not Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 was applicable to the hearers at the time he spoke to them. J.T. needs the text not to be applicable--otherwise, by his own admission his doctrine is error. Yet he has presented nothing that supports his argument. My position on MDR does not have this problem, or any other problem, so why not give it up and teach the truth that Paul demands. For those who are "unmarried" Paul says: "let them marry."