Proposition: Jesus' teachings in the ’MDR‘ texts, such as Matthew 19:3-12, were applicable to the Jews.
This debate is basically limited to whether Matthew 19:9 was applicable to the Jews. Because I am the one that does not go along with traditional beliefs, most would assume that I would be the one denying the applicability of verse 9. That is not the case; because of the importance of truth I have never been inclined to deny what is obvious. In my first affirmative, I showed that the entire passage (3-12) was applicable to the Jews, including the disciples. And it is also applicable to any today who would be guilty of the same sin for which the Jewish men were guilty, which was adultery against their wives (Mark 10:11). Is it not strange that one would deny that verse 9 was applicable to the guilty whom Jesus addressed but affirm that it applies ONLY to people not present and in another age? Strange indeed.
My opponent began his first rebuttal by saying, "In order to disprove brother Waters' position, I will examine all of the passages he says are applicable to prove his position." But he then quoted only verses 3-8 of the text, separating it from verse 9. There is no logical reason for separating this text--it is all one passage directed to the same audience. In my first rebuttal I pointed out specific phrases and words showing who was involved in the discussion and that Jesus' entire response, through verse 12, was directed to Jews.
J.T. uses two arguments in his effort to show that verse 9 was not applicable to the Jews. The first is the assumption that Jesus would have contradicted the Law, which we agree is not acceptable. The second is that we learn from other gospel accounts that Jesus was speaking to his disciples, rather than the Jews, which J.T. says forces us to apply Jesus' teaching on the issue to the coming kingdom. I guess he thinks that when he puts these two arguments together he has actually reasoned out a way to defend his teaching that denies both men and women (who may need marriage to avoid fornication, 1 Cor. 7:1-2) the right to have a marriage. Look up the word "unmarried" used in verse eight. The divorced are unmarried, and Deuteronomy 24:1-2, just like 1 Corinthians 7:1-2; 7-8, 27-28, teaches that the divorced may marry. My opponent is laboring very hard to make his doctrine harmonize with Jesus’ teachings, but he seems not to even be concerned about Paul's teachings. Paul says, regarding the "unmarried," "let them marry." Of course, J.T. believes it can't mean what it says because Jesus said the apoluoed commit adultery by marrying. But he has acknowledged that apoluo does not mean divorce, so what is the reason now for not understanding and obeying Paul?
The Jews asked, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” First, we must understand the question and to do that we must not read into it something that is not there. They asked if it is lawful to "put away" (apoluo) a wife for any reason. Jesus, not willing to allow them to do him damage by dragging him into a controversial issue, not only delicately and subtly answered "no" but he turned the tables back on them by pointing out that their practice of sending away wives was adultery against the wives.
Where J.T. gets off the track is in his thinking of what the following text means: “what God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” He evidently thinks Jesus was saying "let not man divorce." That can't be right because God gave the divorce decree (Deut. 24:1-4). Remember, the Jews asked about "putting away." Therefore, when Jesus said "let not man put asunder" he was saying, "You need to let God 'put asunder' (if the marriage is to be ended) by following his law." Man's way of putting asunder resulted in adultery, but God's way allowed the woman to "go be another man's wife."
J.T. said, "Jesus DID NOT impose on them His answer to their question...If He had, He would have changed Moses’ Law. It would have been a sin to put her away." Yes, to "put away" would have been a sin because, as pointed out above, that course was contrary to the Law that commanded the men to give their wives a divorce certificate.
J.T. quotes verse nine but he has no comment critical of my exegesis that observed three rules of hermeneutics: 1) law of continuity; 2) context; and 3) audience relevance. His comment was: "what Christ said...would have changed Moses’ Law." But if you understand what Jesus really said you understand that it was in harmony with the Law.
J.T. makes the argument that Jesus' teaching could not apply to the Jews because adultery was a capital offense. Here is where we must understand the meaning of adultery, which is a bit different from Webster's definition. Jesus explained that the men's adultery was "against her" (Mark 10:11), which is different from illicit sex in another marriage. Under the Law, men could have more than one wife; therefore the adultery against her was non-sexual as was the case in Jeremiah 3:9, though both were marital adultery--nothing "spiritual" about it. Sexual adultery, a man’s having sex with another man's wife, was a capital offense.
J.T. wrote:
"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."
First, let's not confuse the Law for divorcing a wife with the evil practice of "putting away." Jesus was not changing the former but was condemning the latter. Second, does it not follow that when a woman who was put away without a certificate married another she, as well as the man she married, would commit adultery, because she was not free from her husband who sent her away? Separation does not free one to marry another; therefore, adultery results--but not if there was a divorce along with the separation.
J.T. wrote:
"So any way you look at Matthew 19:9...it contradicts and changes the Law of Moses."
The above is not true if apoluo means "put away" rather than "divorce," and this has already been conceded.
J.T. says I keep "citing the fact that Christ’s disciples were Jews." Yes, I have, because he made an argument (distinguishing Pharisees and Jews) that was based upon the assumption that the disciples were not amenable to the Law. He now acknowledges that they were Jews, but says, "Much of Christ’s teaching to His disciples, who were Jews, was not applicable to them AT THAT TIME." I don't have to deny this statement because even if it is true it has no effect on my proposition.