Proposition: Jesus' teachings in the ’MDR‘ texts, such as Matthew 19:3-12, were applicable to the Jews.
In order to disprove brother Waters’ position, I will examine all of the passages he says are applicable to prove his position.
Matthew 19:3-8 “The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And He answered and said unto them, ‘Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They say unto Him, ‘Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?’ He saith unto them, ‘Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so’.”
To the Jews (who were under The Law of Moses)
Pharisees’ Question – “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”
Jesus DID NOT impose on them His answer to their question. His Answer: (“what God has joined together, let not man put asunder”). If He had, He would have changed Moses’ Law. It would have been a sin to put her away.
Moses Law – put a writing of divorcement in her hand+ put away – she could marry another – he could marry another. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
Jesus’ Teaching in Matthew 19:3-8 was to the Jews who were subject to Moses’ Law
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.”
As you can see from the above, what Christ said either in Matthew 19:4-6 and/or verse 9 would have changed Moses’ Law.
Let’s ASSUME for SAKE OF ARGUMENT that what brother Waters says is true – that Jesus was trying to correct the Jews’ practice by His statement in Matthew 19:9 and therefore it was applicable to them THEN!
Unless the Jew, who was living under the Law of Moses, put away His wife “for (Greek - porneia - porneia) fornication” – sexual immorality – and married another commits (Greek - moichao - moichao) - adultery.” So according to the Law of Moses, what was to happen to people who were committing adultery? 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, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?”
If Jesus was correcting the Law of Moses of “putting away,” He was also changing the Law. For now, if they put away their wives without a writing of divorcement (as brother Waters says they were doing and Jesus was trying to correct) Jesus said unless they put them away for sexual immorality and married another they were both (husband and wife) committing adultery and the Law of Moses said adulterers were to be STONED TO DEATH.
Again, what did Jesus say in Matthew 19:9 about the wife who was “put away?” And whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” So if Jesus was correcting the Law of “putting away,” He was also changing the Law. For now Jesus said the wife who had been put away and the man who married her were both committing adultery. What was to happen to adulterers? John 8:4-5 “…Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned…”
So any way you look at Matthew 19:9, top or bottom, inside or out, it contradicts and changes the Law of Moses.
As we have already shown in three affirmatives, Christ was not applying Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 to the Jews who were subject to Moses’ Law.
Much of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was to be applicable only to the church or kingdom.
Robert keeps citing the fact that Christ’s disciples were Jews. Yes they were. But that doesn’t help him. They were Jews subject to the Law of Moses. Much of Christ’s teaching to His disciples, who were Jews, was not applicable to them AT THAT TIME. I have pointed this out more than once to Robert, but to no avail
“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!
What about Jesus teaching on the new birth in John 3:3-5. 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 Jesus’ lifetime? Was the teaching applicable to Nicodemus and the Jews at that time?
After the Law of Moses was done away, Paul said, Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Now that we have proved beyond shadow of doubt that Matthew 19:9, et al did not apply to the Jews who were subject to the Law of Moses, where will brother Waters go now? My guess is he will try to do the only thing that is left for him to do. HE WILL TRY TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE WORDS FORNICATION AND ADULTERY even though he made no effort to do so in his first rebuttal to my first affirmative. What’s your guess?