A few have wanted to debate the MDR issue on the Bible Matters list. We have allowed one debate. In this thread discuss whatever you would like concerning Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage.

Hafa Adai!

Robert Waters to all,

The exception clause of Matt 19:9 is commongly used as the proof text for support of breaking up marriages and imposing celibacy where a divorce has taken place and the divorce was not for fornication. Furthermore, it is commonly being asserted that ONLY the one who actually filed the petition for divorce (which actually encourages divorce) has a right to marry, which all have to admit often results in innocent people being punished with celibacy. It seems not to matter that one cannot hold the above position and at the same time contend that Jesus lived His life in accordance to the Law–-never transgressing it, because it (their teaching, not the truth) has him flatly contradicting it. Evidently these Bible students think Jesus could have meant nothing else, and so they urge all to believe what seems apparent (to them) that He meant and live with the consequences--which means ignoring the problem noted and doing the best they can to defend it.

Let us look at the text that is supposed to teach the doctrine that has continually kept Christianity in turmoil:

Mt 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. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

footnote: (other versions explaining the situation)

The word for fornication comes from “porneia,” and incest is undoubtedly included in its meaning. It is important to note that Jesus could not have meant “adultery,” when He used the word “fornication,” in speaking to the Jews at the time, because adultery was NEVER a reason for divorce—“uncleanness,” or “some unseemly thing, ASV,” was something different. Furthermore, whatever it was it was determined by the husband and was not questioned by anyone—the “bill of divorcement” ended the marriage and allowed the woman to “go be another man’s wife.” What I'm asking all honest students of the Bible--those who really want the truth (as opposed to defending and maintaining tradition at all cost) to do is to apply the situation below in the blank (where “fornication” was) when you read the text again. You will then clearly see a different explanation for the exception clause – one that makes perfect sense, one that was derived at using good hermeneutics and one that does not benefit the devil in many ways.

Very recently a perfect example of a case that illustrates what Jesus was really teaching, regarding the exception clause, came across the wire. Here it is:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080111/wl_uk_afp/britainchildrenadoptionmarriage

_____________________________________________
Fri Jan 11, 12:15 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Twins who were separated at birth and adopted by different sets of parents later married each other without realising they were brother and sister, a peer has told the House of Lords.
"David Alton, an independent, pro-life member of the Lords, said the brother and sister were granted an annulment after a high court judge ruled that the marriage had never validly existed."
_____________________________________________

Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for _________, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Many have tried to use verse 10 to support the idea that adultery is committed by those who are divorced and that anyone who marries the divorced do the same. However, for Jesus' disciples to have thought that to be true they would have had to understand Him to be teaching contrary to the Law. If that were the case, the response would have been: “But Lord, the Law has always allowed the woman who was given a bill of divorcement to go be another man's wife.” And of course the Pharisees would have used such a comment to destroy the Lord. The disciples' statement was actually in perfect agreement with what is being taught in this article. "If the case of the man be so with his wife (or woman, rw) it is not good to marry." Remember, the “case” is like, or similar, to the one noted in the article above.

The couple (twins) in the recent news did not need a legal divorce, because they were not legally married—the relationship was incest. They needed to do what Jesus taught; being married to each other, they were committing fornication—the same fornication to which Jesus was referring. Therefore, they needed to separate. They did not need a divorce because their marriage was invalid, being incestuous. Thus, in this case a man could put away his “wife” (woman) and marry another and do no wrong. Actually, to apoluo would be the right thing to do.

Jesus did give an "exception." From that "exception" assumption and speculations have arisen that have done great harm to the cause of Christ in "forbidding to marry"; and no wonder, because God called it "doctrines of devils."

Such illicit marriages were common in Old Testament days and it was also evidently common that men were putting away their wives without giving the bill of divorcement (which saved the men from having to give back the dowry). This practice of putting away without the benefit of divorce (which includes a writ) is prevalent among the Jews even to this day.

The truth has come to light and it shall make you free. This explanation of the exception clause makes perfect sense even when each of the gospel accounts is considered. But A red flag comes up, exposing the traditional position as being of men, when Mark 10:11 is read. In this text it is plain that the adultery is against the woman that is "put away" (when the exception does not apply) rather than WITH someone in a new relationship. And since it is true that if there was an actual divorce, according to the Law, there would be no adultery at all, the term "put away" must mean only what it says and not also include the bill of divorce.

footnotes:
Versions that help us understand the text:
New Jerusalem
But I say this to you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the case of an illicit marriage, makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Mt 5:32

New American with Apocrypha
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery." Matthew 19:9

www.TotalHealth.bz
Brotherly,
Robert Waters

The Polygamy Factor

The issue of polygamy is not greatly important to us today living in 21st-century America. The only reason polygamy might be important to someone is if he happened to live in a country where polygamy was legal and he had more than one wife. If that were our situation and we were told by an evangelist that we must get rid of all except one wife, we would, of course, become concerned about the issue of polygamy. Perhaps if we were an evangelist living in a country where polygamy was legal, we might also have to concern ourselves with this issue.

But polygamy is a very important, and usually overlooked, factor in our study of MDR. First, the idea that polygamy was practiced by faithful men of God is not even questioned by serious students of the Bible. Also, Jesus said not one word about polygamy. Now let us get to the point. The traditional MDR doctrine says that if a man legally divorces his wife (unless she committed adultery) Jesus teaches that both he and she must remain celibate and that if either marries another he or she commits adultery.

But when we apply the polygamy factor we see a very big problem for the theory noted above. At the time of Jesus' teachings a man could have more than one wife, so whether he was "still bound" to a particular wife after a divorce was irrelevant, as far as whether he could marry another.

Yet it is claimed that the man who "divorced" her commits adultery “with” the woman in a second marriage. How can that be? It makes no sense, especially when we look at Mark 10:11 and see that Jesus explains that the man commits adultery "against her," i.e., the wife he "put away" rather than, as commonly asserted, WITH the person in the second marriage.

Think about it. Why would God give a divorce law for the women (because of evil men with hardened hearts) so they could marry another, and then come back later and say (through Jesus), "Oh, but you are still married unless you committed adultery." All the while, the man continues to have as many wives as he likes, or can afford. Some among the traditional MDR teachers say the marriage is ended by divorce, even if NOT for adultery, but they are still “bound” to her. So the following comment (from Jesus to the Jews) would be more fitting to explain the change He supposedly made: "Oh, but you don't have a right to marry another unless you were divorced for adultery, and that is true just because I said it."

And, we are left to wonder why God went all those years without explaining to the Jews that divorce did not free the woman or man to marry another, unless the divorce writ stated that it was for adultery. He just let them commit adultery for hundreds of years; then Jesus came along, right before the end of the dispensation and Law, and He FINALLY told them it was adultery--but still said not one word about polygamy.

And even though the Jews sought to entrap Jesus by enticing him to say something like this very thing that the so-called "friends" of Jesus are saying He said, and to use it as a reason to kill Him, they nevertheless accepted it and did not even charge Him with teaching contrary to Moses on the issue. Who can believe it?

In view of what Jesus said recorded in Matt. 5:17-19, we can easily understand that what He said in 5:32 was not contrary to the Law and therefore we must seek a conclusion that will allow harmony of the scriptures and no longer make Jesus a liar and transgressor of the Law. The MDR teaching that misuses verse 32 in requiring the breakup of marriages and impose celibacy is obviously error.

The truth is, Jesus dealt with their original question about "putting away," from the word “apoluo” (which is not a complete legal divorce). With this concept in mind everything Jesus said becomes believable and the teaching of Paul, in his answer to Christians regarding marriage (1 Corinthians 7), becomes very easy to understand, believe and practice.

Teachers of the traditional MDR doctrine site Matt 19:9 to "prove" their doctrine. Yet they cannot present a passage from the entire Bible that, by itself, clearly teaches that polygamy is sinful. Maybe before polygamy can be shown to be wrong SEVERAL passages and arguments have to be presented, and the hearer has to back off and look at the whole picture. I think most would agree to the above. But if they do they cannot then say I have not proved my position on apoluo and MDR that Jesus dealt with the practice of merely sending out the wife and not giving her the writ. When you back off and look at the whole picture the evidence is overwhelming that my position must be right.

Think about it. Why would God give a divorce law for the women (because of evil men with “hardened hearts”) so they could marry another, and then come back later and say (through Jesus), "Oh, but you are still married unless you committed adultery." All the while, the man continues to have as many wives as he likes, or can afford. Some among the traditional MDR teachers say the marriage is ended by divorce, even if NOT for adultery, but they are still “bound” to her. So the following comment (from Jesus to the Jews) would be more fitting to explain the change He supposedly made: "Oh, but you don't have a right to marry another unless you were divorced for adultery, and that is true just because I said it."

And, we are left to wonder why God went all those years without explaining to the Jews that divorce did not free the woman or man to marry another, unless the divorce writ stated that it was for adultery. He just let them commit adultery for hundreds of years, but when Jesus came along, right before the end of the dispensation and Law, He FINALLY tells them it is adultery, but said not one word about polygamy.

And even though the Jews sought to entrap Jesus into saying something like this very thing that the so-called "friends" of Jesus are saying He said, and to use it as a reason to kill Him, they accepted it and did not even charge Him with teaching contrary to Moses on the issue. Who can believe it? In view of what Jesus said recorded in Matt. 5:17-19, we can easily understand that what He said in 5:32 was not contrary to the Law and therefore we must seek a conclusion that will allow harmony. The MDR teaching that misuses verse 32 in requiring the breakup of marriages and impose celibacy is obviously error.

Brethren,

The proposition has been made to find one verse in Holy Writ that forbids polygamy. Here is my contribution:

(Matt 19:5) "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?"

The word 'one' means single and united. Therefore, one man and one woman makes one 'single' or 'united' flesh. Notice that in the same way that we respect the silence of God in regards to instrumental music in the worship to God, we must respect the silence on the subject of polygamy. Where did God sanction polygamy? God is silent in sanctioning. What does he santion? That is a man (singular) leaves his father and mother, and cleave to his wife (singular). These two (one man and one woman) become one flesh. In God commanding this act to be done, he forbids all others. Just like in commanding singing for our music in worship, he forbids all other types of music. If this is not true, then why would he command anything? If in music God tells us that he wants vocal, but doesn't mind if you don't care what he wants and do something else, why would he command such. He wouldn't. He would just leave us to our own judgment. We know better. God wants us to obey him. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt 7:21) In the same way, If God tells us that he wants one man to leave father and mother and be with one woman, then what makes us think that we could do anything else in regards to marriage, such as polygamy or even homosexuality?

So with that said, the verse in Matthew 19:5 in saying what God wants shows also all that he prohibits.

Greetings Shawn and other brethren,
Shawn, thank you for your response in which you seek to defend your position in a brotherly way.

Shawn writes:
The proposition has been made to find one verse in Holy Writ that forbids polygamy. Here is my contribution:

(Matt 19:5) "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?"

The word 'one' means single and united. Therefore, one man and one woman makes one 'single' or 'united' flesh. Notice that in the same way that we respect the silence of God in regards to instrumental music in the worship to God, we must respect the silence on the subject of polygamy. Where did God sanction polygamy? God is silent in sanctioning.

rw:
No, God is not silent in sanctioning polygamy. He actually required it in the case where one's brother died (Deut. 25:5). The following link is to an article by Tina Collins who ably deals with the polygamy issue: http://www.mykentuckybooks.com/articlespolygamy.htm

Shawn continues:
What does he sanction? That is a man (singular) leaves his father and mother, and cleave to his wife (singular). These two (one man and one woman) become one flesh. In God commanding this act to be done, he forbids all others. Just like in commanding singing for our music in worship, he forbids all other types of music. If this is not true, then why would he command anything? If in music God tells us that he wants vocal, but doesn't mind if you don't care what he wants and do something else, why would he command such. He wouldn't. He would just leave us to our own judgment. We know better. God wants us to obey him. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt 7:21) In the same way, If God tells us that he wants one man to leave father and mother and be with one woman, then what makes us think that we could do anything else in regards to marriage, such as polygamy or even homosexuality?

rw:
Remember, Jesus is talking to Jews during the time when the LOM was in affect. (To disregard this fact is to disregard a cardinal rule of hermeneutics.) Undoubtedly, many to whom Jesus was speaking had more than one wife. While Jesus notes how God wanted it from the beginning, it is important to note that Jesus did not teach that those who had more than one wife were committing adultery or sinning in any way. Nor did He give a command that was exclusive, as was the case with the apostle Paul's command to sing. He merely stated a fact, but we find no indication that He intended it to be contrary to Moses' commands. God's ideal was true before, during and after the Law of Moses.

This discussion continues with my response to Shawn's article: "A Look at Matthew 19"

Brethren,

I think it fitting for us to look at Matt 19:9 in its context. In order to better understand the discussion at hand.

Matthew 19:3 tells us that the Pharisees came to Jesus trying to trap him. They obviously knew or heard the ‘new’ law that Jesus was teaching and wanted to trap him by showing his contradiction to Moses. Jesus already taught in the Sermon on the Mount, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” (Matt 5:31-32) I would like you to notice something important to our discussion. Jesus first quotes from the Pentateuch and says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.” Then Jesus continues, “But I say unto you…” Notice, the word ‘but’, it is from the Greek “de” and is denoting adversity and continuation. This is different than the word usually translated ‘and’, which is a copulative conjunction that ties phrases together. That word is ‘kai’. So it is unmistakable that Jesus gives a new commandment, which he being the Son of God and the Great Prophet of God had the ability to do. Moses himself says, “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deut 18:18-19) Why would God send a prophet to speak his words if He had nothing new to say? We don’t have prophets today. Why not? There’s nothing new to be revealed. Jesus never transgressed the Law of Moses, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t have the power to change the Law. He obviously and ultimately took away the old entirely and brought in the new. Another example of him changing the Law of Moses is when he said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matt 5:38-39) This verse of scripture is of the same structure as Matt 5:31-32. Jesus gives the Law then uses the words ‘but I say unto you’ and now teaches something better! Is it not? If not, why not?

So getting back to Matthew 19, we see the Pharisees, with the knowledge of what Jesus previously preached, coming to him and trying to trap him in contradiction with the Law of Moses. They asked him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” In verse 4 thru 6, Jesus gives the answer to the question, “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.” So what does that mean? Jesus gives them the doctrine of monogamy. One spouse for life! Insomuch that God joined them together, and forbids man to put asunder! What does this mean to the question asked? Jesus was telling them an absolute no. It is not lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause. This is evident by the Pharisees reaction. In verse 7, they give their rebuttal when they asked, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” (Matt 19:7) Why would the Pharisees ask this question if Christ wasn’t teaching something different? It wouldn’t make sense would it? Jesus would simply say, “Because it was what God wanted.” Christ, however, didn’t say that. He told them why, which brought shame on them and their fathers. He said, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matt 19:8) We can see plainly from this verse that Jesus was not teaching with this Law. He said that it was given because of ‘hardness of your hearts’. Now Jesus wants ‘perfection’. Jesus says, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” He said that it wasn’t that way from the beginning, which further shows that how He answered their first question was not in agreement with the Old Law. Jesus went before the Old Law and brought back the original Law of God. The way that it was at the beginning! Then we see in verse 9 Jesus finishes his teaching on the subject by again restating his Law. He said, “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.” (Matt 19:9) Jesus speaks of one ‘put away’. What is this ‘put away’? In the discussion, it has been said, that it doesn’t mean divorce but just separated, without the proper procedures taken place. What does the Bible say? Does it define this word ‘put away’, which in the Greek is ‘apoluo’? The Bible does define this word. It’s the same word that is in verse 8, in which Moses suffered them to do. Moses allowed this ‘put away’. Here Jesus says not to do it, except for fornication. To try to teach that ‘put away’ is not divorce but simply separation without the writing of divorcement is to say that Moses allowed that very thing. Is that not what Jesus said? He said, “Moses… …suffered you to put away your wives.” It is obvious then in this context that when Jesus was speaking of putting away, He was speaking of divorce the way that the Law allowed, and in verse 9, He says not to do it, except for fornication.

Perhaps this will help shed some light on what the scriptures teach. The subject of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage is probably one of the hardest and controversial of all discussions. Why? Is it because the Bible isn’t clear? I personally think it is very clear what God wants. Perhaps this subject is so controversial and ‘hard’ because of the emotions involved with it. Are we emotionless monsters? No, we are Christians. And when dealing with this problem with both the Christian and sinner, we need to always show compassion. Peter says, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:” (1 Peter 3:15) Let us always remember who we are; Children of God!

Shawn writes:
The subject of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage is probably one of the hardest and controversial of all discussions. Why? Is it because the Bible isn't clear? I personally think it is very clear what God wants.

rw:
The MDR subject has been made difficult because of mistranslation and failure to use good hermeneutics that result in misapplications of God. Shawn says it is clear and simple to him; yet his position has problems that he has not, and cannot, reasonably explain. MDR seems very simple to me because I understand that a divorce ends a marriage and we are told, regarding the "unmarried," to "let them marry." This is biblical and is indeed simple. But before I can teach the obvious I have to deal with the idea that "put away" means divorce and that Jesus took exception with the idea that a divorce ends the marriage. We agree that Jesus said that a man commits adultery when he puts away his wife and marries another, but ONLY if we understand "put away" to mean "put away" does it makes sense. Jesus said the one who marries her that is put away commits adultery. This too makes sense if we understand "put away" to no mean more than is said. Translate “apoluo” as "divorce" and you immediately have all kinds of problems: textual, moral, logical, legal, doctrinal and hermeneutical.

We know the Law allowed the divorced woman to marry another. Therefore, it makes no sense to think that Jesus did not accept the natural consequences of a legal divorce; i.e., that the woman divorced could “go be another man’s wife.” But that is what has to be done to defend what is commonly believed on the MDR issue. Thus, some are so bold as to say Jesus taught new law on the matter – and not only new, but law contradictory to the existing one. One of the biggest problems with this idea is that the Jews, not having accepted Jesus as a prophet and looking for some reason to kill him for what He claimed, were hoping that Jesus would contradict Moses so they could kill Him. Yet it is important to note that they never charged Jesus with contradicting Moses on MDR.

Shawn:
Perhaps this subject is so controversial and 'hard' because of the emotions involved with it. Are we emotionless monsters? No, we are Christians. And when dealing with this problem with both the Christian and sinner, we need to always show compassion.

rw:
MDR is emotional to some because they have been taught that one who is divorced commits adultery if he or she marries another. It is emotional to others because they see the traditional teaching being contrary to justice because it punishes those who are innocent. Thus, a movement has begun to teach the idea that one can "put away" after being "put away" or that a "mental divorce" before the actual divorce allows the innocent one to marry. All this seems really ridiculous to me. God's teaching is simple and dreaming up devices is not the way to solve hermeneutical or textual problems.

Indeed, we need to show compassion. But how do you show compassion while telling a young woman that her present marriage, because she was divorced by an unfaithful man, is adulterous and she must divorce and somehow go back to her husband or live celibate? It is practicing the very thing that Jesus was condemning and which Paul called "doctrines of devils" – "forbidding to marry." Jesus condemned the practice of men "putting away" their wives, which made them homeless and unable to have a marriage. This is not a problem in our land because the women can initiate the divorce and end the marriage, but it was a problem then and is a problem to this day among the Jews.

Shawn:
Peter says, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" (1 Peter 3:15) Let us always remember who we are; Children of God!

rw:
Indeed we are children of God, but we are not lawmakers. We who are preachers have a grave responsibility to teach only what God has said regarding MDR. The apostle Paul very clearly said, regarding the "unmarried," "let them marry." Yet there are men who sound studious and confident that hold the position that SOME unmarried people must NOT be allowed to marry. This is when it actually becomes complicated—not simple. They seek to simplify it by saying they just show converts, or those seeking fellowship, what Jesus said and let them decide. However, they fail to show them what Paul said; and if the new converts or new members do not understand what “Jesus said” the way the preacher/church does, baptism and/or fellowship is not offered.

It is argued that one can't be saved without repentance and if one is not willing to repent by quitting adultery and living celibate, then he doesn’t need baptism anyway.

But the idea that only an innocent person who initiated a divorced for adultery may marry is based entirely upon assumptions and has too many hermeneutical problems to note at this time. (See the conclusion.)

Shawn:
I think it fitting for us to look at Matt 19:9 in its context. In order to better understand the discussion at hand.

rw:
Yes, it is helpful to understand the context of Matt. 19:9. But it also helpful that we understand that any conclusion that we reach MUST harmonize with clear teaching elsewhere, particularly teaching by Paul who answers OUR questions regarding who may marry. My explanation of this text allows Jesus to be in harmony with Moses and for Paul to be in harmony with Jesus. Shawn's exegesis has all at odds with one another. Paul began answering questions by commanding to let the "unmarried" marry so they can "avoid fornication" (1Cor. 7:2,8,9).

Shawn:
Matthew 19:3 tells us that the Pharisees came to Jesus trying to trap him. They obviously knew or heard the 'new' law that Jesus was teaching and wanted to trap him by showing his contradiction to Moses. Jesus already taught in the Sermon on the Mount, "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matt 5:31-32)

rw:
First, the KJV is grossly inconsistent in translating “apoluo” as divorce in this passage while not doing so in other passages, where the meaning is obviously exactly the same. Note how the renowned scholar, Wuest, translates “apoluo” in this text: "Whoever marries her who has been dismissed commits adultery." Also, note the comments from "Wuest Word Studies:" Mark 10:11 – "The words 'to put away' are apoluo, literally, 'to release.' When used in connection with divorce, it means 'to repudiate.'" Wuest Translation: "And having come to Him, Pharisees kept on asking Him whether it is lawful for a man to repudiate a wife, putting Him to the test."

rw: Let us back up just a moment. Are we ready to admit that Jesus taught new law contrary to Moses? Most of us are not and we believe and teach to the contrary. Let us look at the context of Matthew 5:31-32. Also, note that this text is Jesus' first recorded remarks dealing with our topic. Immediately preceding our text Jesus made some comments to assure that His hearers not misunderstand and conclude that He was teaching something contrary to Moses.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

It seems apparent that Jesus was not, in His comments regarding "putting away" resulting in adultery, making new law because such would have been tantamount to destroying the existing Law. Jesus' teaching was clearly relevant to the present. He addressed a current problem, which means His comments applied to the people to whom He spoke. If He said divorced people commit adultery when they marry then He condemned many who had actually followed the Law of God on the matter. Yet strangely, we do not read of the outrage that would surely have ensued had Jesus said what is commonly attributed to Him. His disciples would have been the last to criticize what Jesus said in 19:9, yet this is exactly what some say His disciples did. They said, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." What is much more reasonable is that they replied to the exception Jesus gave for putting away resulting in adultery. Seeing that an unlawful marriage should be terminated it is better not to marry in the first place.

Now, Jesus did change the Law, but the question is WHEN did He do it? It was after His death (Heb 9:17). Had He actually said things contrary to the Law the Jews would have accomplished what they set out to accomplish. Yet we see no indication that they understood Jesus to be teaching that a divorced person cannot marry another. The fact that they did not charge Jesus with contradicting Moses at His trial, but had to go with trumped up charges, speaks volumes.

Shawn:
I would like you to notice something important to our discussion. Jesus first quotes from the Pentateuch and says, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement." Then Jesus continues, "But I say unto you…" Notice, the word 'but', it is from the Greek "de" and is denoting adversity and continuation. This is different than the word usually translated 'and', which is a copulative conjunction that ties phrases together. That word is 'kai'. So it is unmistakable that Jesus gives a new commandment, which he being the Son of God and the Great Prophet of God had the ability to do.

rw:
No, it is a huge mistake to conclude that Jesus gives a new commandment. However, Jesus does continue with more truth after quoting from the Pentateuch. He deals with the evil and common practice of Jewish men putting away, which equals "repudiating" and sending out of the house. He said something that had evidently not been clarified by the prophets that preceded Jesus. He said, “When you do this evil practice, unless you send away a wife because of fornication (an unlawful union, such as incest) you commit adultery.” He further clarified that the one who married this put away person would commit adultery.

Lest we misunderstand and conclude that He was talking about sex in a second marriage, He gave us Mark's account, which indicates that the adultery is "against" the woman put away rather than "with" a woman in the new marriage—an important point which Shawn did not address.

Shawn:
Moses himself says, "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." (Deut 18:18-19) Why would God send a prophet to speak his words if He had nothing new to say?

rw:
Jesus had plenty new to say that was contrary to Moses, but it was said by His inspired apostles, as they spoke and wrote by inspiration, and is revealed in the pages of the New Testament. This new law was to go forth from Zion (Jerusalem), which apparently took place on the day of Pentecost as the apostles spoke by inspiration (Isa. 2:3). (See http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-law-of-zion.htm )

Shawn:
Jesus never transgressed the Law of Moses, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have the power to change the Law. He obviously and ultimately took away the old entirely and brought in the new.

rw:
We have already shown that Jesus stated that nothing would change regarding the Law until all was fulfilled. We have also shown that He did change it, but not at the time Shawn says He did.

Shawn correctly says Jesus never transgressed the Law of Moses. Yet he insinuates (if not outright states) that Jesus told the Jews something flatly contradictory to what Moses taught regarding marriage.

Shawn:
Another example of him changing the Law of Moses is when he said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matt 5:38-39) This verse of scripture is of the same structure as Matt 5:31-32. Jesus gives the Law then uses the words 'but I say unto you' and now teaches something better! Is it not? If not, why not?

rw:
Albert Barnes, though a proponent of the traditional MDR view, accurately and ably explains the "but I say unto you" passages. On this text he says, "The Jews perverted it to justify private retaliation." Thus, as is apparent to most, Jesus did not take issue with God's Law but with the misapplication and misuse the Jews had made of it. This is the case in each of the "but I say unto you" texts. (See http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-adultery.htm )

Shawn:
So getting back to Matthew 19, we see the Pharisees, with the knowledge of what Jesus previously preached, coming to him and trying to trap him in contradiction with the Law of Moses.

rw:
Yes, Shawn, the Pharisees sought to entrap Jesus, but you are contending that they succeeded, which means Jesus failed—they outsmarted Him. Yet the passage presents no evidence that the Pharisees actually succeeded. The truth that Jesus (because of His infinite wisdom) prevailed as He always did.

Shawn:
They asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

rw:
No mention was made of divorce, as defined and commanded by Moses. Thus, Jesus dealt with what they said. He dealt with their evil practice of sending a wife away—repudiating, but not giving her the "bill of divorcement" so she could "go be another man's wife."
(see comments by Mike Willis: http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-willis-exegesis.htm )

Shawn:
In verse 4 thru 6, Jesus gives the answer to the question, "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." So what does that mean? Jesus gives them the doctrine of monogamy. One spouse for life!

rw:
Indeed, Jesus pointed to how God intended marriage to be from the beginning, but He did not say Moses was wrong nor did He say or imply "You who have more than one wife are committing adultery." Remember, Moses' Law was God's law.

Shawn:
Insomuch that God joined them together, and forbids man to put asunder!

rw:
Indeed, God forbids "man" to put asunder, as brother Shawn noted.

He asked:
"What does this mean to the question asked? Jesus was telling them an absolute no. It is not lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause. This is evident by the Pharisees reaction.

rw:
The above noted text is commonly used to try to show that Jesus condemned divorce, but that could not be further from the truth. He actually condemned the practice of a "man" ending marital relationships his own way, rather than God's way. Why would God give a divorce law and actually COMMAND (Mark 10:3) it be followed (in cases where permanent separation is eminent) and then say it is wrong to do it? While Jesus emphasized the ideal in marriage He obviously did not take away the right of divorce, which would have given sanction to and promoted the abuse of women that was taking place when men "put away" but did not fully release with a "bill of divorce."

Shawn:
In verse 7, they give their rebuttal when they asked, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" (Matt 19:7) Why would the Pharisees ask this question if Christ wasn't teaching something different?

rw:
What Jesus was teaching was different all right, but not different from Moses—it was different from the errant notions of the Pharisees. They asked the above question because they thought Jesus was not recognizing Moses' teaching regarding divorce. And one thing they let slip was the fact that Moses did COMMAND to give the bill of divorcement and to put it into her hand.

Shawn:
He said, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." (Matt 19:8) We can see plainly from this verse that Jesus was not teaching with this Law. He said that it was given because of 'hardness of your hearts'.

rw:
It is commonly asserted that in verse 8 Jesus was teaching that the law on divorce was given because of the hardness of their heart. But that is not true. The divorce law was given because marriages sometimes don't work. It was given to protect women whose lives, without the divorce law, would be made very difficult. Remember, Moses "commanded" the divorce procedure. Thus, what he "suffered" must be something else. It was because of the hardness of their hearts that their putting away was suffered—there was no punishment for it. (More on this later.)

Shawn:
Now Jesus wants 'perfection'. Jesus says, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." He said that it wasn't that way from the beginning, which further shows that how He answered their first question was not in agreement with the Old Law. Jesus went before the Old Law and brought back the original Law of God. The way that it was at the beginning!

rw:
Once again, Jesus did indeed point to the way God wants it, but Jesus did not change Moses' law on divorce.

Shawn:
Then we see in verse 9 Jesus finishes his teaching on the subject by again restating his Law. He said, "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." (Matt 19:9)

rw:
Shawn, you have argued that "and" means "continuation" yet you insist that Jesus is not teaching the same thing as Moses, but rather that He is teaching His new and contradictory law. The first definition of "continuation" given by Encarta is: "the process of continuing something without interruption." With His comments to follow He continued to support the teachings of Moses—not condemn and/or modify.

Shawn:
Jesus speaks of one 'put away'. What is this 'put away'? In the discussion, it has been said, that it doesn't mean divorce but just separated, without the proper procedures taken place. What does the Bible say?

rw:
The Bible gives the definition of a true divorce that ends the marriage (Deut. 24:1-4). For such a divorce to take place there must be the following: 1) "a writing of divorcement”; 2) "put it into her hand"; and 3) "send her out of the house." Obviously, if one only sends his wife out of the house there is no divorce, as God commands.
Shawn:
Does it define this word 'put away', which in the Greek is 'apoluo'? The Bible does define this word. It's the same word that is in verse 8, in which Moses suffered them to do. Moses allowed this 'put away'. Here Jesus says not to do it, except for fornication.

rw:
Exactly! Moses suffered the "putting away" to continue. If Moses had determined not to allow the putting away of wives to continue how could he have enforced such a law? If a man sent a woman out of the house who was to question it? Who would say to the man "You must give this woman a bill of divorcement”? Separations happen and often there is a reuniting. Thus, if Moses had determined not to allow the "putting away" of wives to continue he would have had to set up someone as judge over the hearts of men. The judge would have determined which marriages were truly dead, and he would have also had authority over all the Israelite men so that he could choose for them. To do so would undoubtedly have resulted in divorces taking place where, in time, reconciliation would have occurred.

Shawn:
To try to teach that 'put away' is not divorce but simply separation without the writing of divorcement is to say that Moses allowed that very thing. Is that not what Jesus said? He said, "Moses… …suffered you to put away your wives." It is obvious then in this context that when Jesus was speaking of putting away, He was speaking of divorce the way that the Law allowed, and in verse 9, He says not to do it, except for fornication.

rw:
Before we can accept that Jesus was condemning divorce, rather than "putting away," we have to accept the following: 1) Jesus contradicted Moses; 2) The Jews were ok with Jesus contradicting Moses; 3) God's law actually requires the breaking up of legal marriages; 4) God's law requires imposing celibacy on persons who were faithful in their marriage but were divorced by an unfaithful spouse; 5) The teaching regarding "forbidding to marry" being "doctrines of devils" must be conveniently excluded from applying to certain obviously applicable cases; 6) God said it is not good that man should be alone, but we are ok in requiring it in some cases; 7) Paul said to let every man and woman have a spouse to avoid fornication, but not in cases where it contradicts our traditional view on MDR (1Cor 7:1,2; 8) Paul said to let the "unmarried" marry (1Cor 7:8,9) but he did not mean it--HE MEANT ONLY the "unmarried" as defined by those who have determined that Jesus changed the Law of Moses regarding divorce; and finally 9) You have to believe that when Paul said, regarding the loosed (and divorce is what looses), "if thou marry, thou hast not sinned" that it does not mean what it says, BUT INSTEAD means something different from divorce, which Moses said results in the woman's being allowed to "go be another man's wife."

Thayer on the meaning of "loosed":
Noun: 1b) of the bond of marriage, divorce
Verb: 1b) of a husband and wife joined together by the bond of matrimony (Thayer)

One who is "bound" to another is married. One who is divorced, and has no spouse, is not bound to anyone. The word "bound" implies "married" whereas the word "divorce" implies "unmarried" and unbound. A man cannot be bound to a woman while at the same time she is not bound to him. The "divorced but still bound theory" originated with J.T. Smith and was promoted in "Searching the Scriptures" in 1984. (See: http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-bound.htm )

http://www.TotalHealth.bz

Brotherly,
Robert Waters

Four Needed Cornerstones; All Lacking

When a building or a theory is brought into existence it will only withstand the tests of the circumstances and conditions that will ultimately face it if it has a solid foundation. There are many passages that teach the importance of a solid foundation, and there are passages that talk about "cornerstones" as being an essential part of a building (Isa 28:16; Ps 144:12; Lu 6:48,49). This article is about the "cornerstones" that are thought to support the traditional divorce and remarriage point of view.

The following are four "cornerstones" that are needed to support the traditional position on divorce and remarriage. If only one of the stones is proven to be lacking then the traditional position is seen to be lacking in foundation.

Cornerstone #1: "Only God joins and only God unjoins marriages."

Cornerstone #2: "Jesus taught new law, which contradicted the Law of Moses."

Cornerstone #3: "The Greek word APOLUO, often translated "put away" means divorce and Jesus (Matt. 19:9) therefore condemned those who are divorced to a life of celibacy."

Cornerstone #4: "In the exception clause found in Matt. 19:9, "except it be for fornication", Jesus taught that unless adultery is the reason for the divorce, adultery is committed by either party when they marry."

Cornerstone #1: "Only God joins and only God un-joins marriages."

Those who teach the “traditional” position on MDR probably use the above as an argument more than anything else. It is indispensable that they establish this point. Failure to so do would result in no one believing them when they preach that certain people cannot marry and that others must break up their marriages because, as alleged, they are still married to someone else. Thus, it is clear that without this cornerstone the traditional position will be seen to be merely an unjust, harsh, destructive and unscriptural opinion of men.

The defenders of the traditional doctrine argue that "Only God can join in marriage and only God can un-join." The passage provided is the one where Jesus said, "What God has joined together let not man put asunder". The problem here is that they quote this passage to support the idea that man "CANNOT put asunder". They argue that "in the eyes of God” one is still married unless God sanctioned (or approved of) the divorce. While it is true that the divorce must be as defined in Deut. 24:1, 2, (the three parts) to be a divorce, the passage simply does not say man "cannot put asunder," therefore there is no scriptural foundation for their comment. It is found to be nothing more than a false assertion. For the traditional position to have a foundation it is essential that this idea (i.e., cornerstone) that man cannot divorce without God's approval is essential. Seeing that scriptural support for this particular "cornerstone" is lacking the whole traditional MDR doctrine is seen to be error.

Cornerstone #2: "Jesus taught new law, which contradicted the Law of Moses."

The traditional position maintains that the teachings of Christ on MDR are no different from what has been taught in God's word "from the beginning". They quote Jesus who said, regarding the Jew's practice of divorcing and remarrying, "From the beginning it was not so." It is interesting to note that they emphatically declare that Jesus taught that any divorced person must remain celibate. However, this interpretation of what Jesus said is contrary to the clear teachings of Moses, and this presents an enormous problem. "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's [wife]" (Deut. 24:1,2).

In view of what the above passage says, in order for the traditional position to have a foundation they MUST be able to show that Jesus taught NEW law - that He in fact flatly contradicted Moses. This puts them in a real predicament. You see, the Jews looked upon Jesus as a man. They did not like him and sought to charge him with crimes worthy of death. Had Jesus taught anything contrary to Moses they would have caught it and have used it against him. Jesus was God, but the Jews did not accept that fact and had He sinned in contradicting the Law of Moses they would certainly have dealt with him as a man who taught heresy.

The traditional position desperately needs Jesus to have contradicted Moses, but He could not have done so and be the Savior. They have assumed that Jesus' teachings forbad a divorced person from marrying another, yet the Law He taught under allowed a divorced person to marry another. Since Jesus could not have contradicted Moses and be the sinless Savior, this cornerstone, that is so desperately needed by those who would defend the traditional position, is lacking.

Cornerstone # 3: "The Greek word APOLUO, often translated "put away" means divorce and Jesus (Matt. 19:9) therefore condemned those who are divorced to a life of celibacy."

That several versions, especially the new ones, translate APOLUO as divorce is admitted. However, it is significant that several versions known for their accuracy, to include the American Standard Version, Young’s Literal Translation, Darby and others do not translate APOLUO as divorce.

Lexicographers often include divorce in their definition of APOLUO. They may say, “used of divorce in Matt1:19”, where Joseph had a mind to APOLUO Mary privately. Many conclude that they were in fact married because the text, as often translated into English, indicates that they were husband and wife. However, the word from which “husband” is translated can also mean “man”. Thus, Joseph was her “man”, which would certainly be true in the situation of being betrothed; or, to use our word, “engaged”. The same was true with the word for “wife”. Nevertheless, many have concluded that Joseph and Mary were married at the time this passage was written and therefore APOLUO, as used in the text, meant “divorce”. But this is obviously a false conclusion because the couple was merely espoused at the time and actually married later.

Apoluo is usually translated into English by respected scholars as "put away", which is a phrase that does not constitute a complete divorce.

Does merely putting away, letting go, or sending away constitute "a legal dissolution of the marriage?"

In addition to Deut. 24:1-3, Jer. 3:8 indicates that "put away" is not a divorce but only part of the process:

"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away (shalah H791), and given her a bill of divorce (Kerythuwth h3738): yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also."

If one asserts that "put away" and "divorce" are used interchangeably and mean the same then they have God say, "I divorced her and I divorced her".

Some dictionaries do not include the word divorce in the definition of “put away” including:
Collins English Dictionary and Wordnet Dictionary. Without solid evidence that APOLUO means divorce, as used in the text, the common teaching that divorced persons commit adultery if they marry is apparently based upon a false assumption that a legal/scriptural divorce was under consideration when Jesus and the Pharisees conversed. Evidently Jesus was dealing with a common practice of the Jews - the treacherous act of “putting away” and not releasing or freeing the wife by giving the bill of divorcement, as was commanded by Moses (Deut. 24:1-3; Mark 10:3). Thus, a needed cornerstone for the “traditional” MDR position is lacking.

The link below provides evidence to support the above paragraph.
Jewish Women in Chains

Cornerstone # 4: "In the exception clause found in Matt. 19:9, "except it be for fornication", Jesus taught that unless adultery is the reason for the divorce, adultery is committed by either party when they marry."

There are an alarming number of brethren who contend that a divorce does not take place "in the eyes of God" unless the reason for the divorce is adultery on the part of the one being divorced. The result of this mindset is that people who have been married before, and who want to become a Christian, are given a litmus test: "did your spouse commit adultery?”; or "Did you divorce your spouse because of adultery?" (and some insist that the court documents so reflect). If they answer “yes” they are invited to be baptized and are accepted into fellowship in the church. If they answer "no" they are told that repentance is a prerequisite to baptism and repentance requires that they divorce and avow to never marry.

Actually, the word porneia, in the exception clause, does not refer specifically to adultery (moichao) as is commonly thought. It does include “incest” or unions that are not legal because of close kin (1Cor 5:1; John 14:4; Lev. 20:21; Gen 28:1); or, as was the case with the Israelites, unions with foreign women. If a Jew married someone to whom he was forbidden to marry he could APOLUO her (put away) and marry another and he would not be guilty of adultery against her (Mark 10:11). It would in fact be right to “put away” or separate and thus stop the fornication in such cases.

The traditional explanation of Jesus' teachings regarding "except it be for fornication", regarding which they say refers to unfaithfulness (adultery) on the part of the spouse, is yet another needed cornerstone to support the practice of breaking up legal marriages and imposing celibacy.

Conclusion
We have looked at four points that are needed as cornerstones for the traditional doctrine that requires celibacy for those who have been divorced. If only one of these cornerstones is lacking the foundation cannot be sound and the doctrine is seen to be error. We have seen that not just one but all the needed cornerstones are lacking. Thus, there is no foundation for the traditional position on divorce and remarriage. It is based entirely upon false assumptions and human tradition.

http://www.TotalHealth.bz
Robert Waters

Thank you, Mr. Waters, for your replies.
Brethren, Mr. Waters has given us four cornerstones that we “must” have or else our “traditional” view of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage will crumble. He says they are lacking! Obviously, I disagree, and here is why.

Cornerstone #1: "Only God joins and only God unjoins marriages."

You are assuming wrong when you say that the traditional view supports that man cannot put asunder. I have never preached or taught that. I teach what Christ said: “What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” That is a direct command for those that are children of God are obligated to obey. If you as a man put asunder, you sin. You transgress the Law of God. Then we see Mr. Waters say that even though Christ says this, he turns around and says but its ok if you do put asunder! How ridiculous is that? Mr. Waters has Jesus giving a command and then turning around in the same breath and saying its ok if you break it. Why would Jesus do that?

Cornerstone #2: "Jesus taught new law, which contradicted the Law of Moses."

Mr. Waters says, “Since Jesus could not have contradicted Moses and be the sinless Savior, this cornerstone, that is so desperately needed by those who would defend the traditional position, is lacking.”

Is it lacking? What is lacking is that Mr. Waters assumes that Jesus in order to be following the Law of Moses could not teach new law, even though he was a prophet. Prophets reveal law! John taught that people needed to repent and be baptized. Where did Moses teach that? Was John wrong? Jesus’ purpose was to bring in the new. However, we have Mr. Waters telling us in a previous article that He did that ONLY through the inspiration of the Apostles. In thus saying, He is denying that Jesus was a prophet! Well, that doesn’t follow the scriptures. We see in (Matt 4:23) it tells us, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.” Then we see in chapter 5-7 he preaches the Sermon on the Mount, which includes the disputed Matt 5:32 verse. Then we see in chapter 7, as SOON as he was done preaching it tells us, “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at HIS DOCTRINE: For he taught them as one having AUTHORITY, and not as the scribes.” (Matt 7:28-29) So what did he teach in chapter 5-7? He taught the principles of his NEW KINGDOM along with his NEW LAW! Mr. Waters tried to ‘remind’ me that Jesus was speaking to Jews during the Old Law. I was well aware of that, but was Mr. Waters aware that Jesus was preaching the principles and Laws of the Kingdom? Mr. Waters tried to explain away the question of Matt 5:38-39. “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Mr. Waters tried to harmonize these two laws, but you cannot. They are separate and different law. Which one, Mr. Waters, do we need to obey today? Moses said eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Jesus said turn the other cheek. Which do we obey? You absolutely cannot obey both can you? You need to tell us which we need to obey.

Jesus also says, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt LOVE thy neighbour, and HATE thine enemy. But I say unto you, LOVE your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matt 5:43-45) Moses said in reference to enemies of God, “Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.” (Deut 23:6) Jesus said, “LOVE your enemies.” How do you harmonize these two laws? The only way is that one is old and now done away, and the other is new and needs to be in practice. That’s why that Jesus in verse 48 says, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Can one be perfect by the Old Law? The book of Hebrews says, “For the law made nothing perfect” (Heb 7:19) James, however, tells us, “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty…” (James 1:25) James describes the law of liberty, which is unquestionably the Law of Christ, for Christ can only give liberty, as being perfect! Jesus in HIS DOCTRINE (Matt 7:28) exhorts perfection as God is perfect. If Jesus was teaching the law of Moses, he would have known that it was impossible, under the law, to be perfect! Therefore, Jesus was not teaching the Law of Moses, but was teaching his coming kingdom, just like Matthew recorded in chapter 4 verse 23.

Cornerstone #3: "The Greek word APOLUO, often translated "put away" means divorce and Jesus (Matt. 19:9) therefore condemned those who are divorced to a life of celibacy."

The King James Version of the Bible uses the words ‘put away’. I agree that this word doesn’t always mean divorce. There is no disagreement there. That’s why KJV uses the phrase ‘put away’ instead of ‘divorce’. Divorce is not the best translation. However in the context of Matt 19:9 we see that Jesus uses it in reference to divorce the way that law of Moses allowed, because Jesus says, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to PUT AWAY your wives: (What kind of ‘put away’ did Moses suffer? You must answer this to be honest with yourself.) but from the beginning it was not so. (What was so from the beginning? One man, One woman, for life. Why would Jesus say this unless he was teaching something new?) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall PUT AWAY (Here is the same word ‘put away’ that he said Moses allowed, which we all know to be scriptural, under the old law, divorce. Jesus uses it again in the same breath to describe what he is going to forbid!) his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matt 19:8-9)

In the last article, Mr. Waters, instead of answering this told us what we would have to believe in order to accept that. Why not answer this? Why would Jesus use the word in reference to Moses as meaning divorce and then in the same breath use the same word to mean just separating? Where is your proof for this? Telling us what we would have to believe isn’t proof against my argument. It may be that we are both wrong, but it doesn’t prove what is right! I have shown where Jesus used it in regards to divorce, you need to show where Jesus used it in regards of separation without legal divorce.

Cornerstone #4: "In the exception clause found in Matt. 19:9, "except it be for fornication", Jesus taught that unless adultery is the reason for the divorce, adultery is committed by either party when they marry."

We don’t read anything of the ‘mental divorce’. I as a student of the word will say what Christ said, nothing less or nothing more, and Christ said, “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.” (Matt 19:9) And with recognizing ‘put away’ the same way Jesus used it in the verse before, we can understand what he meant.

I would like to add that Mr. Waters also gave reference to JT Smith as promoting a theory in ‘Searching the Scriptures’ in 1984. I personally have never given heed to any writings on the subject of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage. All things that I have concluded have come from my personal studies of the matter. No man is an island, but as far as this subject is concern I’m about as close to an island as one can get. I’ve never read any books from the brethren or any commentary concerning this subject, except for a ‘Truth Tract’ one time. I just bought a book of a debate on this subject last month, but haven’t been able to give any attention to it yet. I’ve never heard of the article in ‘Searching the Scriptures’ that promoted the bound while unbound theory in 1984. I wasn’t much for reading religious periodicals when I was 6 years old.

I believe that with much study, rightly dividing the word of God and honesty, we all can come to agreement to what the scriptures teach.

Thank You,

Shawn Daniels
www.panachurch.com

Thank you brother Shawn Danials for your replies.
Thank you, Mr. Waters, for your replies.

You say you disagree that the corner stones for the traditional position are lacking. I suppose that it is hard for some to see, but it should not be hard to see the problems associated with the position you hold, which should cause you to try a bit hard to see the unscripturalness of the entire doctrine.

Cornerstone #1: "Only God joins and only God unjoins marriages."

SD: You are assuming wrong when you say that the traditional view supports that man cannot put asunder.

rw: I do not know how many times I have seen or heard people argue that Jesus took away what Moses taught in Deut. 24;1-4 in saying “let not man put asunder.” Thus, I did not assume wrong.

SD: I have never preached or taught that. I teach what Christ said: “What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” That is a direct command for those that are children of God are obligated to obey. If you as a man put asunder, you sin.

rw: You have the scriptures at odds with your conclusion on the MDR issue. Moses gave the command for the men to give their wives, whom they would divorce, a bill of divorcement. Christ himself recognized the legitimacy of this command (Mark 10:3). Yet you interpret the above noted text to say, if you do what Moses said “You transgress the Law of God.”

SD: Then we see Mr. Waters say that even though Christ says this, he turns around and says but its ok if you do put asunder! How ridiculous is that? Mr. Waters has Jesus giving a command and then turning around in the same breath and saying its ok if you break it. Why would Jesus do that?

rw: Jesus was teaching the need for men to be faithful to their wives, but He did not contradict Moses by saying it is sinful to divorce. When Jesus said, “Let not man put asunder” He was not saying “man cannot put asunder” nor was He saying “it is sinful to divorce. He was saying God man cannot divorce his way—it has to be done God’s way. What is God’s way? Well, that answer is very easily answered by merely reading Deut. 24:1-4.


Cornerstone #2: "Jesus taught new law, which contradicted the Law of Moses."

SD: Mr. Waters says, “Since Jesus could not have contradicted Moses and be the sinless Savior, this cornerstone, that is so desperately needed by those who would defend the traditional position, is lacking.”

Is it lacking? What is lacking is that Mr. Waters assumes that Jesus in order to be following the Law of Moses could not teach new law, even though he was a prophet. Prophets reveal law!

rw: I don’t have to explain each and every passage where Jesus is thought by some to teach something new. If you want it explained look at Barnes’ comments. All I am obligated to do is demonstrate that teaching contrary to Moses would have been considered a sin for Jesus or anyone else. This is something that virtually every person on this list believes to be true. Prophets taught, but they were not given authority to teach things contrary to what was written. Yet Shawn would have us believe Jesus changed the Law of Moses regarding divorce, and that He did it while He was living under the very Law He was obligated to teach and obey. Most of us see how absurd this thinking is. And of course, Shawn has no explanation whatsoever as to why the Jews, who did not accept Him as a prophet, and who wanted to kill Him, did not charge Him with teaching contrary to Moses. This is another point that he just ignores.

SD: John taught that people needed to repent and be baptized. Where did Moses teach that? Was John wrong?

rw: Was Jesus’ coming and John’s preaching about it contrary to Moses? Hardly. It was all part of the divine plan of salvation and predestined to happen. The idea that the preaching of Jesus (including baptism) by John and the preaching of the new kingdom by Jesus was contrary to Moses is a thought that would come to the mind only to one that is seeking to justify some tenant of tradition.

Cornerstone #3: "The Greek word APOLUO, often translated "put away" means divorce and Jesus (Matt. 19:9) therefore condemned those who are divorced to a life of celibacy."

SD: The King James Version of the Bible uses the words ‘put away’.

rw: Yes, the KJV and many other versions—translated “apoluo” as “put away,” especially the older better ones. West says, when used of the “divorce” apoluo means “repudiate.” One can certainly “repudiate” (just as he can put away) without giving a bill of divorcement. If there is no bill of divorcement there is no divorce. Obviously, if there is no divorce a woman commits adultery by marrying another. This is what Jesus was talking about. It really should be obvious to all that He was not taking issue with Moses, which would be to take issue with God. Since Jesus’ enemies did not charge Jesus with contradicting Moses what does that say about so-called friends living today who say He did?

SD:
Divorce is not the best translation.

rw: Since we understand divorce to include a bill of divorcement to make it legal/scriptural, translating “apoluo” as divorce is wrong. It would not be so bad if one could determine from the context if a true divorce was meant, but that is not the case and there are textual, moral, legal, and hermeneutical problems with that concept.

SD:
However in the context of Matt 19:9 we see that Jesus uses it in reference to divorce the way that law of Moses allowed, because Jesus says, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to PUT AWAY your wives: (What kind of ‘put away’ did Moses suffer?

You must answer this to be honest with yourself.) but from the beginning it was not so. (What was so from the beginning? One man, One woman, for life. Why would Jesus say this unless he was teaching something new?) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall PUT AWAY (Here is the same word ‘put away’ that he said Moses allowed, which we all know to be scriptural, under the old law, divorce. Jesus uses it again in the same breath to describe what he is going to forbid!) his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matt 19:8-9)

In the last article, Mr. Waters, instead of answering this told us what we would have to believe in order to accept that. Why not answer this? Why would Jesus use the word in reference to Moses as meaning divorce and then in the same breath use the same word to mean just separating? Where is your proof for this? Telling us what we would have to believe isn’t proof against my argument. It may be that we are both wrong, but it doesn’t prove what is right!

I have shown where Jesus used it in regards to divorce, you need to show where Jesus used it in regards of separation without legal divorce.


rw: I thought I had answer this, but just in case I did not I’ll send a post dealing with this specific matter and we shall see what, if anything, Shawn says to refute it.

Cornerstone #4: "In the exception clause found in Matt. 19:9, "except it be for fornication", Jesus taught that unless adultery is the reason for the divorce, adultery is committed by either party when they marry."

SD: We don’t read anything of the ‘mental divorce’. I as a student of the word will say what Christ said, nothing less or nothing more, and Christ said, “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.” (Matt 19:9) And with recognizing ‘put away’ the same way Jesus used it in the verse before, we can understand what he meant.

rw: We evidently are in agreement regarding “mental divorce.” We are also in agreement as to what Jesus said in Matt. 19:9, and it is as true today as it was when He said it. However, in a previous post I fully explained this text in a way that allows Jesus’ teaching to harmonize with Moses and which is not at odds with Paul’s clear teaching. I have seen nothing from Shawn’s writings that indicate that he has any concern that his teaching is based upon bad hermeneutics.

Why did Shawn not deal with my explanation? Why did he just assert his position once again?

SD:
I personally have never given heed to any writings on the subject of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage. All things that I have concluded have come from my personal studies of the matter.

Rw: From what you say you believe and teach it seems apparent that you either have not read or studied 1 Corinthians 7 or that you know or care nothing about hermeneutics.

SD:
I believe that with much study, rightly dividing the word of God and honesty, we all can come to agreement to what the scriptures teach.”

rw: Shawn, honesty demands that you apply hermeneutics to the MDR study the same as you do other issues. Study the issue like it was for the first time. Do not draw a conclusion that does not allow the scriptures to harmonize or which has consequences that cannot be accepted. The position on MDR I hold is the only one that does not have serious problems, other than that it bucks tradition (which concerns me little), thus it must be the truth. I noted several problems for your position, but you ignored them and continued to seek to defend your position. Is this exercising the honest that you say we need to come to agreement?

Brotherly,
Robert Waters

Thank you, Mr. Waters, for your reply.

Mr. Waters you say that this may be hard for some to see. Yes, I’ll agree with that. It is hard for me to say that I’m a Christian, a follower of Christ, but yet say that he never taught any doctrine different than that of Moses. If this was the case then, why am I not a Jew, and follow the Law of Moses? You failed to show that Jesus teaching a new Law would cause him to sin. The Prophet of God had the right to teach new Law, just as much as he did to forgive sins. When Jesus healed a palsy man he said, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.” (Mark 2:5) Mr. Waters, would you be as the religious leaders that hear him and say, “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins BUT GOD ONLY?” (Mark 2:7) The Old Law tells us, “Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage?” (Mic 7:18) Only God has this right and ability. I’m sure that Mr. Waters wouldn’t say that, then why would you say that he didn’t have to power and authority to teach new law without sinning?


Cornerstone #1: "Only God joins and only God unjoins marriages."

rw: I do not know how many times I have seen or heard people argue that Jesus took away what Moses taught in Deut. 24;1-4 in saying “let not man put asunder.” Thus, I did not assume wrong.

SD: You assumed wrong by saying that we teach a man can’t put asunder his marriage. I know that man can put asunder, else it would be absurd for Jesus to say not to do it.

rw: You have the scriptures at odds with your conclusion on the MDR issue. Moses gave the command for the men to give their wives, whom they would divorce, a bill of divorcement. Christ himself recognized the legitimacy of this command (Mark 10:3). Yet you interpret the above noted text to say, if you do what Moses said “You transgress the Law of God.”

SD: The Old Law teaches you to use an instrument in your praise to God. Does that mean that you have authority to do so now? Of course not. We are under the new. When Jesus was teaching to let no man put asunder he was teaching ‘HIS DOCTRINE’. Remember Mr. Waters, I showed how that Jesus was teaching the Law of HIS coming KINGDOM. You obviously agreed because you didn’t refute it. Therefore, what he was teaching is not in accordance to the old law. The old law said nothing about repentance and baptism, yet we see that John taught it. The Pharisees rejected it, just like you are rejecting Jesus’ teaching of men not putting asunder! I know that you can see that.

rw: Jesus was teaching the need for men to be faithful to their wives, but He did not contradict Moses by saying it is sinful to divorce. When Jesus said, “Let not man put asunder” He was not saying “man cannot put asunder” nor was He saying “it is sinful to divorce. He was saying God man cannot divorce his way—it has to be done God’s way. What is God’s way? Well, that answer is very easily answered by merely reading Deut. 24:1-4.

SD: I agree that Jesus didn’t contradict Moses. Jesus was prophet speaking the Law to HIS KINGDOM. The one that we are now living under. Moses prophesied that He would come and do this.

Cornerstone #2: "Jesus taught new law, which contradicted the Law of Moses."

rw: I don’t have to explain each and every passage where Jesus is thought by some to teach something new. If you want it explained look at Barnes’ comments. All I am obligated to do is demonstrate that teaching contrary to Moses would have been considered a sin for Jesus or anyone else. This is something that virtually every person on this list believes to be true. Prophets taught, but they were not given authority to teach things contrary to what was written. Yet Shawn would have us believe Jesus changed the Law of Moses regarding divorce, and that He did it while He was living under the very Law He was obligated to teach and obey. Most of us see how absurd this thinking is. And of course, Shawn has no explanation whatsoever as to why the Jews, who did not accept Him as a prophet, and who wanted to kill Him, did not charge Him with teaching contrary to Moses. This is another point that he just ignores.

SD: Mr. Waters, I agree you don’t have to. I feel however, that it’s not because you don’t have to, but because you can’t, in good conscience, say that Jesus never taught ANYTHING new, and if you do say he taught something new, then why not the marriage law? Mr. Waters knows that the foundation of His doctrine crumbles if he acknowledges that Jesus did teach new doctrine. Mr. Waters, I’m not talking to Barnes’. I’m talking to you. I wouldn’t waste my time writing if I wanted to consult Barnes’. In saying that Jesus never taught anything new, you are denying that Jesus was a prophet. If Jesus wasn’t a prophet, then He wasn’t the Christ, because Moses says, “The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto HIM YE SHALL HARKEN;” (Deut 18:15) The Father himself says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; HEAR ye him.” (Matt 17:5) Remember this story? They wanted to build three tabernacles for Moses, Elias, and Jesus. God said, “Hear ye him.” That is to hear the Son of God. Yet we see Mr. Waters say that Jesus didn’t say anything! You know better than that. Hebrews tells us, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days SPOKEN unto us by his SON, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” God’s will, His Word, was spoken to us by His SON. The writer goes on and says, “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be SPOKEN by the LORD, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;” (Heb 2:3) Mr. Waters says that I don’t know anything about hermeneutics, but yet He denies what is plainly stated and taught. Who needs to take a refresher course in hermeneutics, Mr. Waters? So we see that Mr. Waters deny that Jesus taught anything new because he would’ve been contradicting Moses. He denies that Jesus was a prophet and thus denies that He was the Christ. If He wasn’t the Christ, then He wasn’t the Son of God. You know what John says about deniers of Jesus’ Sonship?

You say that He in teaching something new would cause him to sin. I say not at all. Why? If I teach something new today, I sin. Surely I would. Why then was Jesus allowed? He was allowed for the same reason John was. The Pharisees also wanted to know why Jesus was allowed to preach new things, because they asked a similar question. “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?” (Matt 21:23) If Jesus was teaching just the Law of Moses, he surely would have said, “By the authority of Moses!” Jesus gives the answer if they could answer a question about John as we will see in the next rebuttal. Jesus was prophesied to come and teach. It was prophesied by Moses himself that the Christ would come and teach something new!

rw: Was Jesus’ coming and John’s preaching about it contrary to Moses? Hardly. It was all part of the divine plan of salvation and predestined to happen. The idea that the preaching of Jesus (including baptism) by John and the preaching of the new kingdom by Jesus was contrary to Moses is a thought that would come to the mind only to one that is seeking to justify some tenant of tradition.

Do you see Mr. Waters? You didn’t answer this question. You just kind of side stepped it. Moses did not COMMAND them to repent and be baptized did he? John, however, did COMMAND it. Therefore, by your ‘hermeneutics’ you have John CONTRADICTING Moses. Moses never commanded that one needed to repent and be baptized unto the remission of sins. John REQUIRED it. You would have to be one that would show sympathy for the Pharisees that rejected John, because they were like you and said, Moses said nothing about baptism, were you say Moses said nothing about divorce resulting in living in adultery.

You see, you just answered that John’s preaching of Jesus’ coming was not contrary to Moses. That’s not what I asked. John required an action to be done that Moses didn’t command. Therefore, he was adding to the Law of Moses. Was he not? Jesus justified this by showing him a PROPHET. “The BAPTISM OF JOHN, whence was it? from HEAVEN, or of MEN? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From HEAVEN; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then BELEIVE him? But if we shall say, Of MEN; we fear the people; for all hold John as a PROPHET.” (Matt 21:25-26) You see, Mr. Waters, the Pharisees didn’t believe John because they didn’t recognize him as a prophet. Therefore, they refused to obey his word, and be baptized. Were they wrong for that? Moses didn’t say anything about it. Were they in danger of Hell for not obeying a prophet of God, even though He was teaching something different than what Moses taught?

Cornerstone #3: "The Greek word APOLUO, often translated "put away" means divorce and Jesus (Matt. 19:9) therefore condemned those who are divorced to a life of celibacy."

rw: Yes, the KJV and many other versions—translated “apoluo” as “put away,” especially the older better ones. West says, when used of the “divorce” apoluo means “repudiate.” One can certainly “repudiate” (just as he can put away) without giving a bill of divorcement. If there is no bill of divorcement there is no divorce. Obviously, if there is no divorce a woman commits adultery by marrying another. This is what Jesus was talking about. It really should be obvious to all that He was not taking issue with Moses, which would be to take issue with God. Since Jesus’ enemies did not charge Jesus with contradicting Moses what does that say about so-called friends living today who say He did?

I submit that the Pharisees did charge him. Jesus first says, “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.” (Matt 19:4-6) When they asked, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away” (Matt 19:7) that shows that they didn’t agree with his teaching. They gave a rebuttal. Mr. Waters wants us to think that Jesus and the Pharisees were having a casual discussion and agreeing even on the subject of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage. It is plain to see that there was a disagreement. Jesus in his defense says, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to PUT AWAY (apoluo) your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matt 19:8) You see, Mr. Waters, Jesus gave a defense. The phrase, “because of the hardness of your hearts” is to put shame on them. It was a law given to their shame! He said, “…but from the beginning it was not so.”, then he says, “and” (kai) which ties the last phrase, ‘but from the beginning it was not so’ to the following phrase, “AND I say unto you…” That means that his doctrine is tied with the phrase ‘but from the beginning it was not so.”

He says, “What does that say about so-called friends living today who say He did?” Mr. Waters what does it say for one that says he’s a follower of Jesus, but like the Pharisees, say that he didn’t not have authority to teach new doctrine?

rw: Since we understand divorce to include a bill of divorcement to make it legal/scriptural, translating “apoluo” as divorce is wrong. It would not be so bad if one could determine from the context if a true divorce was meant, but that is not the case and there are textual, moral, legal, and hermeneutical problems with that concept.

SD: It’s not the case because Mr. Waters doesn’t want to accept it. He says, “It would not be so bad if one could determine from the context if a true divorce was meant, but that is not the case and there are textual, moral, legal, and hermeneutical problems with that concept.” He says this even though I showed without a shadow of doubt that Jesus used that word in reference to what Moses allowed. Jesus said, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to PUT AWAY (apoluo) your wives.” Mr. Waters, what did Moses suffer? Did Moses suffer one to put away his wife without a writing of divorcement? Of course not, he suffered them to DIVORCE! Why not just accept the truth?

rw: I thought I had answer this, but just in case I did not I’ll send a post dealing with this specific matter and we shall see what, if anything, Shawn says to refute it.

SD: I’m looking forward to reading your post, but I must insist that you show that Jesus used this ‘put away’ in the sense of one putting away a spouse without a writing divorcement. Jesus just used the same word in reference to what Moses allowed. I’ll ask this again. What did Moses allow? Jesus called it apoluo! Do you really think it good hermeneutics to say that Jesus in the same breath used the same word to mean two totally different things?

Cornerstone #4: "In the exception clause found in Matt. 19:9, "except it be for fornication", Jesus taught that unless adultery is the reason for the divorce, adultery is committed by either party when they marry."

rw: We evidently are in agreement regarding “mental divorce.” We are also in agreement as to what Jesus said in Matt. 19:9, and it is as true today as it was when He said it. However, in a previous post I fully explained this text in a way that allows Jesus’ teaching to harmonize with Moses and which is not at odds with Paul’s clear teaching. I have seen nothing from Shawn’s writings that indicate that he has any concern that his teaching is based upon bad hermeneutics.

SD: Again, Mr. Waters wants to say that we are using bad hermeneutics, but then he turns around and denies that Jesus taught any law of His Kingdom. We have the writers of Hebrews saying otherwise. We have Matthew telling us that Jesus went teaching His Doctrine about His Kingdom in Matthew chapter 5-7! I have said that Jesus did teach new law because I KNOW that the scriptures teach that he did, and I believe you KNOW he did too.

Why did Shawn not deal with my explanation? Why did he just assert his position once again?

SD: The exception clause says for the cause of ‘fornication’. This word is from the word ‘porneia’. Strong’s says, ‘harlotry (including ADULTERY and INCEST); figuratively, idolatry.’ This word is used 26 times in the New Testament and is consistently translated ‘FORNICATION’ in the KJV. It is the same word that Paul used when he said, “Nevertheless, to avoid FORNICATION, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” (1 Cor 7:2) Mr. Waters would have you believe that Paul was worried that the brethren would start marrying their physical sisters, so he exhorted them to get there own wife outside the family to avoid incest! How ridiculous is that? Paul uses the word in the same sense Jesus did. Sexual immorality! If not, why not?

Rw: From what you say you believe and teach it seems apparent that you either have not read or studied 1 Corinthians 7 or that you know or care nothing about hermeneutics.

You need to show specifics, friend. I don’t see any contradictions. Perhaps you need to show me where I contradict the book of 1 Corinthians.

rw: Shawn, honesty demands that you apply hermeneutics to the MDR study the same as you do other issues. Study the issue like it was for the first time. Do not draw a conclusion that does not allow the scriptures to harmonize or which has consequences that cannot be accepted. The position on MDR I hold is the only one that does not have serious problems, other than that it bucks tradition (which concerns me little), thus it must be the truth. I noted several problems for your position, but you ignored them and continued to seek to defend your position. Is this exercising the honest that you say we need to come to agreement?

SD: Mr. Waters, this is the way I approach this subject, as if it were for the first time! I have never drawn conclusions and then try to make the scriptures harmonize. I could care less for traditionalism. That never matter to me. What does matter is the truth, and I can already tell that your teaching of Jesus never teaching the New Law is completely out of harmony with the scriptures. You are completely wrong when you say, “The position on MDR I hold is the only one that does not have serious problems, other than that it bucks tradition (which concerns me little), thus it must be the truth.” Your view denies that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, if you take it to its ends!

Again, I will say this again, “I believe that with much study, rightly dividing the word of God and honesty, we all can come to agreement to what the scriptures teach.” When I say honesty, I mean honesty from both parties, Mr. Waters. That was not intended to be a stab at you or anything, but you thought it important to remind me that I’m the one that needs to be honest. I always strive to be honest with the scriptures. I thank you for your exhortation for me to be honest. I hope that all can be honest in all things. If I’m going to do something I’m going to do it right. There’s no sense of making fit ourselves, and especially for the cause of traditionalism. You say my position contradicts 1 Corinthians, but I say that your position contradicts Hebrews and the rest of the scriptures that teach that Jesus taught HIS DOCTRINE.

Thank You,

Shawn Daniels
www.panachurch.com

Hello Shawn and others on the list,

SD: Mr. Waters you say that this may be hard for some to see. Yes, I’ll agree with that. It is hard for me to say that I’m a Christian, a follower of Christ, but yet say that he never taught any doctrine different than that of Moses. If this was the case then, why am I not a Jew, and follow the Law of Moses? “…Then why would you say that he didn’t have to power and authority to teach new law without sinning?

rw: Shawn, if this discussion is to continue with hopes of any profit coming from it you are going to have to start listening an quit building straw men to attack. The issue is not whether Jesus taught anything new. The issue is not, “Was Jesus God?” The issue is, “Did Jesus teach things that flatly contracted Moses?” Please hear this and stop attacking the straw man: I am not, and have not taught that Jesus never taught anything new. He just never taught CONTRAREY to Moses. Now He did teach contrary to the false notions of the Jews, but NOT Moses. Virtually all sound gospel preachers are agreed with me on this issue, including YOU. Yet you foolishly make argument after argument trying to show that Jesus did in fact teach contrary to Moses. I’m sure that the readers are tiring of your misguided efforts.

Now, it is obvious to me that Jesus did not teach contrary to Moses on MDR, mainly because the Jews did not charge Him with so doing. Shawn contends that the Pharisees did charge Jesus with contradicting Moses, yet he says Jesus didn’t do it. I think maybe Shawn can see from this argument that there is indeed a problem both with his reasoning and his teaching. We will look carefully later at the text he used, but it is a well without water.

Shawn also has not attempted to explain Matt 5:17-19, where Jesus made it very clear that He was not going to teach contrary to Moses—and this was right before His first discourse on the “put away” issue. If “put away” meant “put away” then there is no problem harmonizing what He said with Moses, but if “put away” meant “divorced” then Jesus broke His promise in destroying the Law on that point. And of course, if “put away” meant “put away” we don’t have a problem believing Paul who said, regarding the “unmarried” to “let them marry” (1Cor. 7:8,9).

Jesus did change the Law, but in a way that conformed to what He said in Matt. 5:17-19—it was after all was fulfilled at the cross.

Cornerstone #1: "Only God joins and only God unjoins marriages."

rw: I do not know how many times I have seen or heard people argue that Jesus took away what Moses taught in Deut. 24;1-4 in saying “let not man put asunder.” Thus, I did not assume wrong.

SD: You assumed wrong by saying that we teach a man can’t put asunder his marriage. I know that man can put asunder, else it would be absurd for Jesus to say not to do it.

RW: Ok, so you realize that the argument many have made is not valid. Man CAN put asunder, but he must do it God’s way—which is to follow the Law God has given found in Deut. 24.

rw: You have the scriptures at odds with your conclusion on the MDR issue. Moses gave the command for the men to give their wives, whom they would divorce, a bill of divorcement. Christ himself recognized the legitimacy of this command (Mark 10:3). Yet you interpret the above noted text to say, if you do what Moses said “You transgress the Law of God.”

SD: The Old Law teaches you to use an instrument in your praise to God. Does that mean that you have authority to do so now? Of course not. We are under the new. When Jesus was teaching to let no man put asunder he was teaching ‘HIS DOCTRINE’.

RW: Now, Shawn, you have clearly admitted that Jesus did not contradict Moses, yet the twist you have put on Jesus’ words indicates you are saying He did in fact contradict Moses. Your reasoning is not sound, you are inconsistent and you are hurting your own credibility.

You argue that Jesus’ statement “let not man put asunder” is new doctrine, and not only new but contrary to Moses’, and means man cannot divorce. Of course, you don’t even believe that is true. What Jesus was saying was in opposition to the Jewish practice of putting away wives and not giving them the bill of divorcement, as God commanded. This was an example of “man” putting asunder, rather than God—when the divorce was done His way.

SD: Remember Mr. Waters, I showed how that Jesus was teaching the Law of HIS coming KINGDOM. You obviously agreed because you didn’t refute it. Therefore, what he was teaching is not in accordance to the old law. The old law said nothing about repentance and baptism, yet we see that John taught it. The Pharisees rejected it, just like you are rejecting Jesus’ teaching of men not putting asunder! I know that you can see that.

rw: Jesus was teaching the need for men to be faithful to their wives, but He did not contradict Moses by saying it is sinful to divorce. When Jesus said, “Let not man put asunder” He was not saying “man cannot put asunder” nor was He saying “it is sinful to divorce. He was saying man cannot divorce his way—it has to be done God’s way. What is God’s way? Well, that answer is very easily answered by merely reading Deut. 24:1-4. Man’s way, “putting away,” is condemned by the Lord in such passages as Matt. 19:3-12. He said it results in adultery. The traditional position has an inherent problem that simply will not go away: innocent persons are forced to celibacy. Of course, everyone knows about this problem and others as well, but it is usually ignored, like Shawn has ignored it and trucked on in his defense of his teaching.

SD: I agree that Jesus didn’t contradict Moses. Jesus was prophet speaking the Law to HIS KINGDOM. The one that we are now living under. Moses prophesied that He would come and do this.

Rw: Well, maybe we are making some progress. But what does this admission mean? Does it mean Jesus taught new law but NOTHING contradictory to Moses? OK, we don’t have a problem. Let us from this point on save a lot time and avoid a lot of confusion by only dealing with Jesus teaching that clearly contradicts Moses, as the traditional view on MDR has Him doing. But you can’t bring up a single passages that does that, without hurting your own credibility, because you have admitted that Jesus did not contradict Moses.

You really would have more of a leg to stand on in defending the traditional view on MDR, in teaching that Jesus did contradict Moses, because Moses clearly taught that a divorced woman could marry and that very Law was in effect and was the hub of the controversy.

The idea that Jesus changed the Law on MDR, but not at the time He spoke it, is utterly absurd. First, if God wanted to change the Law regarding “Who can marry?” He would have waited and let the apostles teach it by inspiration. Why tell Jews that their practice was resulting in adultery when it was not true at the time—it couldn’t be unless Jesus contradicted Moses. Yet Jesus did say their practice of “putting away” and marrying another resulted in them committing adultery against their wives (Mark 10:11). And so it does not take a genius to see the predicament Shawn is in. The truth is the Pharisees were confronted with the fact of their sin of “putting away” wives, but Jesus never said those who were divorced, being different from “put away,” cannot marry another. (This is an assumption based upon misunderstanding of what Jesus said.) This is why they did not charge Jesus with teaching contrary to the Law—He didn’t. Shawn agrees, and the only way it can be true that Jesus didn’t contradict Moses on MDR is if He dealt with “putting away” and not “putting away AND giving the bill of divorce.”

Cornerstone #2: "Jesus taught new law, which contradicted the Law of Moses."

Rw: Shawn, you continue over and over to charge that I don’t believe Jesus taught anything new, and you charged that my doctrine crumbles because I cannot prove that He didn’t. That is not true. Look at the proposition or cornerstone again. The key word is “contradict” not “new.” I'm talking about new doctrine that contradicts Moses. This is what the MDR doctrine does, and since you have admitted that Jesus did not contradict Moses you have given up the debate. Unless you are going to join me in teaching the truth you best let someone else try to defeat my teaching.

SD: Mr. Waters, I’m not talking to Barnes’. I’m talking to you. I wouldn’t waste my time writing if I wanted to consult Barnes’. In saying that Jesus never taught anything new, you are denying that Jesus was a prophet.

RW: I noted Barnes because he deals with every instance where it is has been charged that Jesus took issue with Moses, ably showing the absurdity of such a thought. For me to answer them all would take up too much time and space. If I were to formally debate the matter of whether Jesus contradicted Moses I would deal with every one of them, if my opponent said they were contradictions. But you, Shawn, have already said Jesus did not contradict Moses, so why do you still want me to explain these passages?

SD: If Jesus wasn’t a prophet, then He wasn’t the Christ…”

RW: I don’t disagree. He was both a prophet and the Christ. But allow me to use this same logic. If Jesus transgressed the Law that He lived under and was obligated to follow and teach (which He would have done if He contradicted Moses on MDR), then He was not the Christ. And if He said what is traditionally taught on MDR then He did indeed contradict the Law. Thus, it should be apparent that the traditional MDR doctrine is error. There is no foundation for it.

I could quote several things that Shawn said that is absurd, but maybe he will get the message that he has attacked a straw man and start debating me.

rw: Was Jesus’ coming and John’s preaching about it contrary to Moses? Hardly. It was all part of the divine plan of salvation and predestined to happen. The idea that the preaching of Jesus (including baptism) by John and the preaching of the new kingdom by Jesus was contrary to Moses is a thought that would come to the mind only to one that is seeking to justify some tenant of tradition.

SD: Do you see Mr. Waters? You didn’t answer this question. You just kind of side stepped it. Moses did not COMMAND them to repent and be baptized did he? John, however, did COMMAND it. Therefore, by your ‘hermeneutics’ you have John CONTRADICTING Moses. Moses never commanded that one needed to repent and be baptized unto the remission of sins.

RW: Shawn, you need to see that “different” and “contradict” are words with different meanings. Also, you did not get my point. John’s teaching was something that was prophesied to take place and nothing he taught flatly contradicted existing Law, as does the traditional MDR doctrine that you are unsuccessfully trying to defend.

Cornerstone #3: "The Greek word APOLUO, often translated "put away" means divorce and Jesus (Matt. 19:9) therefore condemned those who are divorced to a life of celibacy."

rw: Yes, the KJV and many other versions—translated “apoluo” as “put away,” especially the older better ones. Wuest says, when used of the “divorce” apoluo means “repudiate.” One can certainly “repudiate” (just as he can put away) without giving a bill of divorcement. If there is no bill of divorcement there is no divorce. Obviously, if there is no divorce a woman commits adultery by marrying another. This is what Jesus was talking about. It really should be obvious to all that He was not taking issue with Moses, which would be to take issue with God. Since Jesus’ enemies did not charge Jesus with contradicting Moses what does that say about so-called friends living today who say He did?

SD: I submit that the Pharisees did charge him. Jesus first says, “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.” (Matt 19:4-6) When they asked, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away” (Matt 19:7) that shows that they didn’t agree with his teaching. They gave a rebuttal.

RW: Ok, they had a question and you could call it a rebuttal. But Jesus followed with an explanation, which evidently removed any hopes of being successful in their effort to entrap Jesus in His words. The bottom line is the Pharisees did not, at this point, make a charge against Jesus regarding contracting Moses, not did they do it at His trial. In fact, they never did make the charge. Brethren today, however, are doing it. But you are not, yet you are. You can’t have it both ways. It was His disciples that made the final comment (verse 10) regarding the exception clause, and certainly they did not understand Jesus to have taken issue with Moses.

SD: It is plain to see that there was a disagreement. Jesus in his defense says, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to PUT AWAY (apoluo) your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matt 19:8) You see, Mr. Waters, Jesus gave a defense. The phrase, “because of the hardness of your hearts” is to put shame on them. It was a law given to their shame! He said, “…but from the beginning it was not so.”, then he says, “and” (kai) which ties the last phrase, ‘but from the beginning it was not so’ to the following phrase, “AND I say unto you…” That means that his doctrine is tied with the phrase ‘but from the beginning it was not so.”

He says, “What does that say about so-called friends living today who say He did?” Mr. Waters what does it say for one that says he’s a follower of Jesus, but like the Pharisees, say that he didn’t not have authority to teach new doctrine?

Cornerstone #4: "In the exception clause found in Matt. 19:9, "except it be for fornication", Jesus taught that unless adultery is the reason for the divorce, adultery is committed by either party when they marry."

SD: Again, Mr. Waters wants to say that we are using bad hermeneutics, but then he turns around and denies that Jesus taught any law of His Kingdom.

rw: Shawn, you are using bad hermeneutics and you false charge me regarding Jesus’ teaching about His kingdom. Again, this is a straw man you have built.

rw: Why did Shawn not deal with my explanation? Why did he just assert his position once again?

SD: The exception clause says for the cause of ‘fornication’. This word is from the word ‘porneia’. Strong’s says, ‘harlotry (including ADULTERY and INCEST); figuratively, idolatry.’ This word is used 26 times in the New Testament and is consistently translated ‘FORNICATION’ in the KJV. It is the same word that Paul used when he said, “Nevertheless, to avoid FORNICATION, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” (1 Cor 7:2) Mr. Waters would have you believe that Paul was worried that the brethren would start marrying their physical sisters, so he exhorted them to get there own wife outside the family to avoid incest! How ridiculous is that? Paul uses the word in the same sense Jesus did. Sexual immorality! If not, why not?

rw: Of course Paul used the word in the same sense Jesus did. It just so happens that incest is fornication and it evidently was the particular type of sin that would not take place if one just put away for that cause.

Now, since you brought up Paul, how about you answer what He said. He tells us to let every many and woman have a spouse to avoid fornication. When a woman is divorced she is “unmarried” and does not have a spouse. Paul says “let her marry” and gives the reason for doing so. You and many others say, “No, we must check and see who was guilty, and if she was guilty she cannot marry.” And so you disobey what Paul said and cause a great hardship on this woman, just as the Jewish men were doing by putting away and not fully divorcing so they could “go be another man’s wife.”

Rw: From what you say you believe and teach it seems apparent that you either have not read or studied 1 Corinthians 7 or that you know or care nothing about hermeneutics.

SD: You need to show specifics, friend. I don’t see any contradictions. Perhaps you need to show me where I contradict the book of 1 Corinthians.

rw: 1 Cor. 7:1,2, 7,8, 27,28, 36. “Let them marry” has to be qualified or made to harmonize with your doctrine. Paul, however, was very clear.

rw: Shawn, honesty demands that you apply hermeneutics to the MDR study the same as you do other issues. Study the issue like it was for the first time. Do not draw a conclusion that does not allow the scriptures to harmonize or which has consequences that cannot be accepted. The position on MDR I hold is the only one that does not have serious problems, other than that it bucks tradition (which concerns me little), thus it must be the truth. I noted several problems for your position, but you ignored them and continued to seek to defend your position. Is this exercising the honest that you say we need to come to agreement?

SD: Mr. Waters, this is the way I approach this subject, as if it were for the first time! I have never drawn conclusions and then try to make the scriptures harmonize. I could care less for traditionalism. That never matter to me. What does matter is the truth, and I can already tell that your teaching of Jesus never teaching the New Law is completely out of harmony with the scriptures. You are completely wrong when you say, “The position on MDR I hold is the only one that does not have serious problems, other than that it bucks tradition (which concerns me little), thus it must be the truth.” Your view denies that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, if you take it to its ends!

Again, I will say this again, “I believe that with much study, rightly dividing the word of God and honesty, we all can come to agreement to what the scriptures teach.” When I say honesty, I mean honesty from both parties, Mr. Waters. That was not intended to be a stab at you or anything, but you thought it important to remind me that I’m the one that needs to be honest. I always strive to be honest with the scriptures. I thank you for your exhortation for me to be honest. I hope that all can be honest in all things. If I’m going to do something I’m going to do it right. There’s no sense of making fit ourselves, and especially for the cause of traditionalism. You say my position contradicts 1 Corinthians, but I say that your position contradicts Hebrews and the rest of the scriptures that teach that Jesus taught HIS DOCTRINE.

rw: I appreciate those final words. Perhaps, as we continue this study you and others will see that my position is sound doctrine.

www.TotalHealth.bz
Brotherly,
Robert Waters

Thank you Mr. Waters, again, for your response.

Brethren, Mr. Waters says that I’m fighting a straw man. That me contending that Jesus teaching new doctrine is not what the issue is. Well, Mr. Waters says that the issue is not whether Jesus taught anything ‘new’ but if this ‘new’ doctrine is ‘FLATLY’ contrary to the Law of Moses. Mr. Waters, don’t you know that anything ‘new’ within it self is a contradiction? Moses is the one that said, “Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye DIMINISH ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deut 4:2) Mr. Waters anything new is an addition, and Moses says that we are not to do it! Jesus, and the prophets, had a right to ‘add’ because they were the mouthpiece of God! If I am fighting a straw man, it is because Mr. Waters built it and fled, leaving it without defense. Now, we see that Mr. Waters isn’t as bold regarding Jesus teaching new Law. He now says, “Shawn, you need to see that “different” and “contradict” are words with different meanings. Also, you did not get my point. John’s teaching was something that was prophesied to take place and nothing he taught FLATLY contradicted existing Law, as does the traditional MDR doctrine that you are unsuccessfully trying to defend.” Mr. Waters, don’t you know that anything ‘different’ is a ‘contradiction’? Paul says, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8) I’m sure we would agree that the gospel with additions would pervert it. Would we not? The same applies to the Law of Moses. You say Jesus didn’t contradict, but just preached ‘new’ and ‘different’ things. I say, according to the Law of Moses, Paul, and John in the book of Revelation, it is an addition and thus ‘contrary’ already! Mr. Waters says as long as it doesn’t ‘FLATLY’ contradict the Law then it wasn’t a contradiction. Mr. Waters, instrumental music doesn’t FLATLY contradict any law of the New Testament, but yet we know that it’s unlawful!

Mr. Waters says that I agreed that Jesus never taught anything that was a contradiction to the law of Moses, and then says that I’m loosing my credibility. Mr. Waters, I never said that. You said that. Why would you say that I said it? Unless you are trying to make me loose credibility! Jesus did teach a ‘different’ law than that of Moses! I showed all through (Matt 5) where Jesus gave the old Law and then said the words, “but I say unto you…” If that’s not changing the Law, I don’t know what is! Instead of Mr. Waters dealing with this, he’d rather say that he doesn’t have to and I’m just fighting a straw man! Mr. Waters was it a false notion of the Jews regarding the law when Jesus said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”? (Matt 5:38) No, you know that that is a direct quote from the Old Law! Moses says, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” (Ex 21:24) We see Jesus say, “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matt 5:39) Is that not new Law which contradicts the Old? Oh, wait, I’m sorry, Mr. Waters doesn’t have to answer this! I'm just fighting a straw man!

You said that we need to deal with (Matt 5:17-19) “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” I say you need to deal with it. You need to harmonize your reasoning on these verses with (Matt 5:38-39)! I know, however, you don’t have to! You say, “Shawn also has not attempted to explain Matt 5:17-19, where Jesus made it very CLEAR that He was not going to teach contrary to Moses” Where did Jesus say that he was not going to teach a Law contrary to Moses? You said, ‘Jesus made it very clear.” That’s about as clear as a blind man’s sunny day! Jesus didn’t say he wouldn’t teach something different than the Law. He said that he was coming to fulfill the Law, not destroy! Mr. Waters knows very well that the word ‘destroy’ comes from the Greek word ‘kataluo’, which means to disintegrate, and Jesus puts that word in direct contrast with the word ‘fulfill’. This sets forward ‘CLEARLY’ the Lord’s intention, which is to bring the law to completion rather than demolishing it. That does not say, however, that Jesus said he wouldn’t provide a New Law that would take the Old out of the way. Paul later tells us, “Having ABOLISHED in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;” Jesus didn’t disintegrate the Law, but He did ‘ABOLISH’ it. That means he rendered it idle. It is no longer in force. Jesus did not destroy the Law. If he would have destroyed it, he could not have fulfilled it. But having fulfilled it, he did abolish it! That is what he's talking about in those verses. That's why he continues and says, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Once he fulfilled, then the Law of Moses was abolished. That does not say that He limited himself from teaching his Law of Liberty, which includes many laws that are different than the law of Moses, just read Matthew 5

Mr. Waters wants to move on from this. He feels that this is a moot point! I am fighting a straw man, remember. Even though, He’s the one that says that Jesus NEVER taught any LAW that CONTRADICTS the Law of Moses! So we’ll move on. He wants to now bring up the ‘unmarried’ in 1 Corinthians. I personally think we haven’t settled the section of this discussion dealing with Jesus teaching a New Law. I would rather finish my steak before I eat my dessert. This is Mr. Waters’s way of confusing the matter and moving on to something that he thinks we cannot deal with. Mr. Waters it is rediculous for us to discuss 1 Corinthians 7 if we don't agree on the foundation of the disagreement. We could never come to agreement on 1 Corinthians 7 until then.

Mr. Waters, You mentioned a formal discussion. I believe that we could set something up. If not with me, perhaps with someone that has more ‘credibility’, and perhaps more experience. I believe that sense this subject has so many avenues to explore, perhaps we could have one discussion with the purpose and work of Christ on earth under the Old Law. Once we get that ‘straw man’ out of the way, we could have a discussion on Matthew 19:9 and the meaning of ‘apoluo’. Then we could have a discussion on 1 Corinthians 7. I am quiet confident that we could have the debate published in book form for all the brotherhood to read. I can set up to get it recorded in both audio and video format. If you do have the truth, this would be a great way of spreading it.

Thank you again,

Shawn Daniels

www.panachurch.com
garyshawndaniels@gmail.com

Hello Shawn,

You wrote:
> Mr. Waters says that I agreed that Jesus never taught anything that was a contradiction to the law of Moses, and then says that I’m loosing my credibility. Mr. Waters, I never said that. You said that. Why would you say that I said it? Unless you are trying to make me loose credibility! >

Yes, you are loosing, or have lost credibility, at least with me. You made the very clear statement that Jesus did not contradict Moses, and that those were my words. (The idea that Jesus DID NOT contradict Moses is in line with the beliefs of virtually all gospel preachers—but not you.) I saw in your next post where you evidently found where you did say Jesus did not contradict Moses and you tried to fix it. I can’t affectively debate someone that does this sort of thing. Too much smoke. People will not listen or read.

SD: Mr. Waters, don’t you know that anything ‘different’ is a ‘contradiction’?

Rw: You say that “new” (or different) teaching (by Jesus) is the same as contradictory teaching. Thus, according to you, all the new things that Jesus said were contradictory to Moses. This idea is absurd! The O.T. is composed of a number of books. The books were written one at a time. When each “new” book was written it was “new” but NOT contradictory to what was already written. This is the case with what Jesus said and did. When you can explain why the Pharisees, who sought to entrap Jesus in His words so they could kill Him, did not formally charge Him with teaching contrary to Moses then you will have gained back some of the credibility you have lost by your illogical and unscriptural reasoning and argumentation. Most know better and do not even attempt to accomplish the impossible. But you have already tried, and failed miserably.

SD: Paul says, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8) I’m sure we would agree that the gospel with additions would pervert it. Would we not? The same applies to the Law of Moses.

Rw: No, this is where you are very wrong. The preaching of the gospel by Jesus (as I have already noted once already) was in God’s plan from the foundation of the world and was written in the O.T. Thus, the idea that what John and Jesus said regarding Jesus and His new Kingdom being contradictory to Moses’ teaching is absurd! If you were not trying to justify a COC traditional doctrine you would have never thought of such a thing.

SD: You say Jesus didn’t contradict, but just preached ‘new’ and ‘different’ things.

Rw: What I said is I don’t have to deal with the passages where you say Jesus taught something that was new. All I have to do is deal with the passages where you claim Jesus taught contradictory to Moses. Of course, you have complicated things by errantly saying “new” and “contradictory” are the same thing.

SD: Jesus did teach a ‘different’ law than that of Moses! I showed all through (Matt 5) where Jesus gave the old Law and then said the words, “but I say unto you…”

Rw: My friend, why in the world would any gospel preacher try to show that Jesus took issue with God’s word, and the Law that was in effect at the time. This was Law that Jesus Himself was subject to obey and DID obey. This is the Law that He followed perfectly. It is utterly outrageous for you to say He did not obey the Law. The idea that He could teach contrary to that Law and do what ever He wanted to, because of who He was, takes away the significance of the perfect life that He lived.

SD: Mr. Waters was it a false notion of the Jews regarding the law when Jesus said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”? (Matt 5:38) No, you know that that is a direct quote from the Old Law! Moses says, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” (Ex 21:24) We see Jesus say, “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matt 5:39) Is that not new Law which contradicts the Old?

Rw: Shawn, you are wasting my time with these arguments. If you really had a concern for truth you would have taken my advice and read Barnes’ comments, which would cause any reasonable person to see that Jesus did not contradict Moses. Barnes said the O.T. text was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. He said as a judicial rule it was not unjust. “Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge.” Thus, Jesus did not contradict Moses, but took issue with the false notions of the Jews regarding Moses teachings. Anyone who sets out to pit Jesus against Moses MUST have some ulterior motive and is certainly NOT endeavoring to reach the truth that God has revealed.
Shawn, Barnes ably explains all of your proof text that you use to try to show that Jesus contradicted Moses. Same on you for not digging for the truth and for making the false application, that negatively reflects on our Lord.

SD:You said that we need to deal with (Matt 5:17-19)

Rw: Indeed, you need to apply it to the study and quit trying to explain it away or to harmonize it with your teaching—it will not harmonize.

“Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

You asked, “Where did Jesus say that he was not going to teach a Law contrary to Moses?”

He said the Law would not pass, not one tittle (no part of it-including MDR) til all be fulfilled. Now, Shawn, you are saying Jesus CHANGED the part of the Law that dealt with divorce. You need to accept what Jesus said and retract your teaching.

Rw: After a lot of rhetoric you said,
> But having fulfilled it, he did abolish it! That is what he's talking about in those verses. That's why he continues and says, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Once he fulfilled, then the Law of Moses was abolished. That does not say that He limited himself from teaching his Law of Liberty, which includes many laws that are different than the law of Moses, just read Matthew 5 >

Shawn, you clearly have Jesus doing something He said He would not do before the cross. There is no getting around it.

SD: Mr. Waters it is ridiculous for us to discuss 1 Corinthians 7 if we don't agree on the foundation of the disagreement. We could never come to agreement on 1 Corinthians 7 until then.

Rw: What you said above brings to my mind what is actually the biggest problem that you, and many others, have in seeing the truth on MDR. You seem to think that the teaching of Jesus to the Jews is the place to start in the study and then you go to Paul, who speaks to US,(clearly) and MAKE his words conform to what you have concluded (errantly) that Jesus taught. Paul clearly says regarding the divorced (unmarried) “let them marry.” This was the same doctrine taught by Moses and Jesus did not change it.

To deny those who have no marriage the right to a marriage takes away the tool God gave for one to avoid fornication (1Cor7:1,2). Why can’t you see the problems with your doctrine? I know you can, but why don’t you admit them and then try to see what is really the truth.

Brotherly,
Robert Waters

Brethren,

Mr. Waters is trying to use a statement that I made against me, which he says hurts my credibility. The statement was this, "I agree that Jesus didn’t contradict Moses. Jesus was prophet speaking the Law to HIS KINGDOM. The one that we are now living under. Moses prophesied that He would come and do this." Mr. Waters used my first statement and ignored the rest. I said that I agree that Jesus didn't contradict Moses. I suppose a better word would be transgress. I went on to say that Jesus was speaking the Law to HIS KINGDOM. Those are two completely different Laws. They do not agree. Hebrew says the old was not perfect, and James says the New is perfect.

I didn't catch this at first. That was written quiet quickly. I was wondering why Mr. Waters would say that I said Jesus never taught law that was different than Moses. I still affirm that He did. Not only that, but I affirm that the Law of Liberty that Jesus taught doesn't live in harmony with the Law of Moses. With that said, however, I do not believe that Jesus teaching His Law, which is different than that of Moses', transgressed the Law of Moses. Sorry for the confusion. I'll try to choose my words better in the future.

Thank You,

Shawn Daniels
www.panachurch.com
garyshawndaniels@gmail.com

Greetings to brother Shawn and other list members,

Shawn wrote:
> Mr. Waters, what did Moses suffer? Did Moses suffer one to put away his wife without a writing of divorcement? Of course not, he suffered them to DIVORCE! Why not just accept the truth? >

What Was “Suffered” by Moses?
A Study of Some Important Texts
Deut. 24:1-4; Mal. 2:14-16; Is 50:1; Mark 10:4

First, for a number of years I have been convinced that the Greek word APLOUO, often translated as “put away,” (a phrase that is commonly referred to by preachers in their writings as “divorce”) refers to something that can, has been and is being done that is much worse than divorce. Divorce, of course, is defined in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as involving a “bill of divorcement.” Thus, any action that falls short of the requirements of this text is not a legal/scriptural divorce.

An argument that has been made against the idea that APOLUO should not be translated as “divorce” is based upon what Jesus is assumed to have said. It is thought that the way Jesus responded to the Pharisees’ question regarding a matter that was a hot topic of discussion indicates that “put away” and “divorce” are synonymous terms. This text is also important to our understanding what Moses “suffered” and what he actually “commanded.” Let us now note the text from Mark, note some other passages and then we will come back to Mark:

Mr 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The Pharisees first asked about “putting away,” from APOLUO. Whether this phrase is commonly understood to refer to divorce today is not the issue. (Certainly “put away” is commonly thought to be “divorce” because many of the new versions so translate it and the KJV did in one instance. Nevertheless, in view of the reputation of the new versions, it should not be difficult to accept that they might have erred in their departure from the trusted ASV, and KJV on this matter.) We need to know the circumstances and what was in the mind of Jesus as he responded.

First, the Hebrew text makes it evident that there was a problem with men not being faithful to their wives – this being the reason for the command to “write the bill of divorcement and put it into their hands.…” If there was no problem with men sending their wives out of the house then what purpose was there in the command to “write a bill of divorcement and put it into her hand?” You might be thinking, “It was so that those who committed adultery could be divorced.” But that cannot be the reason for the command because the married men and women who committed adultery by having sex with another was to be put to death.

Some have demanded other evidence besides what can be found in the scriptures and that is also available. I found a document that provides evidence that Jews are still, to this day, acting treacherously toward their wives by “putting away” and not presenting the divorce papers, which would release them to marry in accordance with the writings of Moses. The information that can be obtained by following the link below has been noted by some as being very powerful evidence to support the idea that “put away” does not mean “divorce”:
Jewish Women in Chains
http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-jewish-women-in-chains.htm

Imagine the grief and problems any women would face, especially those who had no profession, if their spouse sent them away and refused to give them a divorce. (Keep in mind that the Jewish men would have to give back the dowry if they actually divorced the wife, but not if they just sent them out of the house.) They would not be able to marry or even be with another man for such could result in them being executed for adultery (Le 20:10). Thus, it should not be hard to accept that such “putting away” (KJV, ASV) is what God says He “hateth,” rather than divorce. Actually, it is my intention to help you see that the very thing that God refers to as hating (Mal 2:14-16) was something that was indeed very bad but the remedy for it was divorce.

First, no one questions the fact that God divorced Israel to whom He was “married” (Jer 3:14). Thus, we have a personal example teachings us that divorce may become the right thing to do. Note the following passage:
Isa 50:1 – “Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away?”

Note that when we have reference to God ending a marriage it was not just “putting away.” God speaks of the “bill of divorcement.”

Before we get to the explanation of the account in Mark, let us look at another Old Testament Passage:

Mal 2:14 - Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Some, in their efforts to defend their practice of imposing celibacy, have used the text above to try to teach that even though one may have divorced his wife he is still married to her. First, the Jewish Law allowed divorced persons to marry (Deut. 24:1-4), therefore, the idea that the text teaches that one who is divorced is still married would be to contradict, and even make a mockery, of the Law of Moses (which was God’s law) where divorced persons were allowed to marry. We are all, I’m sure, in agreement that the text clearly teaches that marriage was indeed still intact following one being “put away.” There can be only one explanation as to why it was still intact: The wife had been “put away” but not given the “bill of divorcement.” Such dealing was what God hated and what he called treachery. Of course, some have asserted that Jesus contradicted or changed the Law, but that is implausible because if it were true Jesus would without doubt have been charged with transgression of the Law on the matter, but that did not happen.

Now back to Mark’s account of Jesus’ conversation with the Pharisees:
First, it seems evident from reading the text that there was indeed a “precept” or “command,” because that is what it says. However, what has confused some is the matter of what Moses “suffered,” and some have been quick to conclude that since divorce was “suffered” then it was not commanded. Well, that does not explain the fact of the command, as stated in the Deuteronomy text and confirmed by Jesus. In chapter 24:1-4, there clearly is a command to not JUST “put away” or “send away,” which obviously does not END a marriage, but also a command to “write a bill of divorcement” and “put it into her hand.” Thus, what was “suffered” cannot logically be the same thing as what was “commanded.”

Jesus replied to the Pharisees by asking: “What did Moses command you?” (Mark 10:3)
Was the discussion about a command or permission? Mosses “suffered” what they were doing, which we have seen was the practice of “putting away.” There was no punishment for it. Why? Well, we know they were allowed more than one wife so putting away and marrying another was nothing to the men and there was no punishment for doing so. It was allowed. We know what they were doing was evil because Jesus explains, in verse 11, that it was adultery against the wife (covenant breaking). What were they doing? They were “putting away” but not fully legally/scripturally releasing the women and were thus guilty of an act which we have seen to be something God hates, which was described as treachery.

Giving the “bill of divorcement” was not suffered. In Mark 10:4, just after Jesus asked, “What did Moses command you,”
Note the Pharisee’s reply: “And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.”

Jesus did not agree with their statement. He told them it was a precept or command (Deut. 24:1-4) and after their reply, in their efforts to justify their evil practice in noting what Moses supposedly “suffered,” (contrary to what Jesus had just said) He tells them, AGAIN, it is a precept or command: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.” If they had not so behaved toward their wives the command would not have been necessary. They were truly “hard hearted” to have been guilty of treating their wives the way they had been treating them.

What was the precept? It was the command to complete the release of the women legally/scripturally rather than simply sending them out of the house, which resulted in adultery on their part in dealing treacherously, and women would be guilty of adultery if they married another. Such would be true because the marriage was still intact and women were not allowed to have more than one husband.

Brotherly,
Robert Waters

Thank you, Mr. Waters, for your post concerning the ‘putting away’ that Moses suffered.

Brethren Mr. Waters writes, “Jesus did not agree with their statement. He told them it was a precept or command (Deut. 24:1-4) and after their reply, in their efforts to justify their evil practice in noting what Moses supposedly “suffered,” (contrary to what Jesus had just said) He tells them, AGAIN, it is a precept or command: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.” If they had not so behaved toward their wives the command would not have been necessary. They were truly “hard hearted” to have been guilty of treating their wives the way they had been treating them.

What was the precept? It was the command to complete the release of the women legally/scripturally rather than simply sending them out of the house, which resulted in adultery on their part in dealing treacherously, and women would be guilty of adultery if they married another. Such would be true because the marriage was still intact and women were not allowed to have more than one husband.”

Mark records Jesus saying, ‘For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.’ Matthew records Jesus saying, ‘Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives.’ (Matt 19:8) Those verses are parallel in meaning. What Moses suffered or ‘allowed’ was a precept or a command! To say that Moses suffered anything else would have Moses at odds with God. What was the precept? – Scriptural Divorce! I completely agree, and Jesus called that ‘putting away’ or ‘apoluo’. Did he not? “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts SUFFERED (or gave a PRECEPT) you to PUT AWAY your wives.” (Matt 19:8) That ‘suffer’ was an ‘allowing’. It was allowed because it was a precept, and Jesus calls it ‘put away’ or ‘apoluo’.

Now, Mr. Waters, why would Jesus use the word in Matthew 19:8 to mean divorce and then turn around in the same breath to mean a separation without a written bill of divorcement? Where is your proof that Jesus would do that?

Mr. Waters also says, “…which resulted in adultery on their part in dealing treacherously” How is it, Mr. Waters, that one would commit adultery in acting treacherously? – By putting them away without a bill of divorcement? Sure it’s sinful, but how is that act called adultery? You, Mr. Waters, now have Jesus contradicting Moses. The Law allowed for the MEN to marry more than one wife, but yet you have Jesus saying that they can’t do that anymore without committing adultery. Notice, Jesus didn’t say they commit adultery if they put away their wife. He said that they committed adultery WHEN they marry another woman! But, Mr. Waters, how can this be? The Law of Moses allowed for polygamy, and Jesus never taught anything that ‘FLATLY’ contradicted the Law of Moses did he?

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary says adultery is “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband”. Where is your proof that covenant breaking is adultery within itself? Sure it is evil. There’s no question there, but how is it adultery? Mr. Waters says we have problem when we say one can be ‘unmarried’ but yet still in a situation that would allow for them to commit adultery, and then he turns around and gives adultery a made up definition when it suits his theory! You question my intelligence, credibility, and ability to rightly divide the scriptures and then you do something like that?

Mr. Waters makes an appeal to Malachi, and completely misses the mark with Malachi. Malachi wasn’t making a case against divorce in general. The problem was that they were ‘putting away’ their Jewish wives for daughters of other gods. That would be speaking of heathen women. (Mal 2:11) Malachi said they were not only dealing treacherously with their wives but they were dealing treacherously with their fellow brethren. (Mal 2:10) How are they dealing treacherously? They were bringing ungodly women and in turn ungodly offspring into their ranks. That was Malachi’s appeal there. God wanted Israel to be pure and prepare for the coming Messiah. It makes no difference whether this ‘putting away’ is speaking of scriptural divorce or just sending them away, because either way they would’ve been sinning in this case! The Jews were not to marry heathens. (Ex 34:12-16)

I know that Mr. Waters knows that Matthew 19:8-9 causes grief to his theory. It is as plain as the ink on the page. Jesus uses ‘apoluo’ in reference to the COMMAND of Moses, and then turns around in the same breath and says that if a man ‘apoluo’ his wife AND marries another he commits ADULTERY.

Thank you,

Shawn Daniels
www.panachurch.com
garyshawndaniels@gmail.com

Will Friends (?) of Jesus Accomplish
What The Jews Did Not?
Facts and Observations

1. There was a Law in effect while Jesus lived, known as the Law of Moses (Josh. 8:31).

2. It was possible to do things “contrary to the law” (Acts 18:13; 23:3)

3. There were penalties for those who contradicted or taught contrary to it (Deut. 17:8-13; Lev. 26:14-24).

4. Those who were in a position to punish law breakers viewed Jesus as just another man - subject to the Law Of Moses as others.

5. The Jews were LOOKING for ANYTHING with which to charge Jesus. Entrapment was their motive when they questioned Jesus on the matter of "putting away."


6. After Jesus spoke, the Jews DID NOT charge Him with teachings contrary to the Law, but were silent on that matter.

7. Certain teachers, who claim to be FRIENDS (?) of Jesus, are NOW charging Jesus with teaching contrary to the Law.

8. Jesus had the authority to change the Law, and he did, but NOT while he lived (Matt. 5:17-19; Heb. 7:12; 9:17).

9. Had Jesus taught that a person who had been divorced could not marry, then he would have clearly contradicted Moses (Deut. 24:1,2).

10. Anyone, including Jesus, to have contradicted Moses could, quite rightly, be accused of sin.

11. Jesus is the Son of God and according to the Scriptures, He committed no sin (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:22).

12. Therefore, those who teach that Jesus contradicted and changed the Law of Moses, while He lived, are teaching error.

13. IF Jesus contradicted the Law of Moses then His accusers would have succeeded in both discrediting and exposing Him as a pretender.

14. Those who continue to teach that certain legal marriages must be broken up and that certain people who have no marriage must remain celibate, charging that Jesus taught such, are not friends of Jesus at all. No friend of Jesus would claim He taught a doctrine that God calls "doctrines of devils" ("forbidding to marry" 1Tim 4:1-3). Why, even his enemies who eventually crucified him on trumpted up charges did not make the charge that Jesus contradicted Moses and instituted a new law whereby divorced persons must remain celibate.

Thank You, Mr. Waters, for you reply.

Brethren,

Mr. Waters is the very one that said when he announced his first article on this forum, that we need to act brotherly. I have acted brotherly. Mr. Waters has just signed his article as being brotherly, but in fact it has been everything but brotherly. He seems to be one with a chip on his shoulder. Mr. Waters, I don’t have a problem with you personally, because I don’t know you personally, but I do know that you have a poor way of teaching something ‘brotherly’. I still consider myself a young student of the bible. If you did have the truth, you being older ought to have been able to teach me being younger. I only want the truth! Instead you would rather try to win the argument, which you absolutely can not accomplish, by trying to make stabs at my intelligence, credibility, and ability to rightly divide the word of truth. I say you need to grow up and learn how to defend properly what you believe to be true. (Prov 11:30) "He that winneth souls is wise." I have conducted myself with respect to you, and still been able to make arguments in which you have not and can not answer.

Mr. Waters, you said, “The idea that Jesus DID NOT contradict Moses is in line with the beliefs of virtually all gospel preachers – but not you.” You are wrong when you say that. Any logical gospel preacher would know that Jesus taught a new and better law than that of Moses while he was here on earth. Everyone knows that, even you do. That doesn’t mean that He transgressed the Law of Moses by teaching His Law. You may ask why? The reason is as Mr. Waters himself had said, “The preaching of the gospel by Jesus (as I have already noted once already) was in GOD’s PLAN from the foundation of the world and was written in the O.T. Thus, the idea that what John and Jesus said regarding Jesus and His new Kingdom being contradictory to Moses’ teaching is absurd!” That’s exactly right, Mr. Waters. It was prophesied that Jesus would come and preach a ‘New’ and ‘Different’ Law than that of Moses. If it is ‘New’ and ‘Different’ then it isn’t the SAME. Moses himself said that instead of hearing him, you would now hear the Messiah! You notice, Mr. Waters, that when Jesus taught HIS DOCTRINE, he didn’t misrepresent the Law of Moses. He said Moses said one thing, and then he would say, “but I SAY unto you…” That is Christ teaching HIS DOCTRINE. He didn’t contradict Moses in the sense that he didn’t misrepresent Moses doctrine, but He did teach new doctrine that isn’t in harmony with the Law of Moses. One is perfect the other is not!

Mr. Waters, you say, “you can’t affectively debate someone that does this sort of thing. Too much smoke.” I made a mistake and used the wrong word while typing. There was no ‘smoke’. How dare you! I’m sure Mr. Waters never makes a mistake, but for us mere normal gospel preachers, we do sometimes. I didn’t even mean to say that. I was meaning to say that Jesus never transgressed the Law of Moses, even in teaching His DOCTRINE. Why don’t you tell everyone the real reason why you will not debate? I didn’t say you had to debate me, but I said that we could find someone with more ‘credibility’ and experience! Why not debate? You sure like to keep putting your two cents in even though you never answer any of my questions or arguments with book, chapter, and verse as I have yours. Instead of acknowledging any of my arguments you say things like you don’t have to answer or I’m fighting a straw man! Sounds like to me, that you are loosing your credibility with me and to all that is reading. It is ridiculous to say that Jesus didn’t teach HIS DOCTRINE on this earth. If he did teach HIS DOCTRINE then it is ridiculous to contend that he teaching a new law on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage would be transgression on his part!

In teaching HIS DOCTRINE he taught things that were not in harmony with the old, because the new is not in harmony with the old. Is it in harmony with the old? Can we practice both the New and the Old?

Mr. Waters tried to ‘explain’ to me that the Old Testament wasn’t written all at once. Well, Mr. Waters, I was well aware of that. There were almost 1500 years of writing! You have just given more proof to my position. Mr. Waters said, “When each “new” book was written it was “new” but NOT contradictory to what was already written.” That’s right, even though Moses commanded us not to add. These books were not contradictory. Why? Is it because it just re-preached the Law of Moses? No, because they do teach new Law too. It’s right to add them because they were prophets of God and were the ‘Mouthpiece of God’. Now, Mr. Waters would have you believe that they were added and ok to be added because they never said anything ‘FLATLY’ contrary to the Law of Moses. If that were the reason then why not accept the Apocrypha? Those books never ‘FLATLY’ contradict the Law, but they do teach ‘New’ doctrine. Why not accept them? The books were added because the writer was inspired. They taught new Law that wasn’t part of the original Pentateuch. If I wrote a book that doesn’t ‘FLATLY’ contradict the Law of Christ, but taught new doctrine that isn’t in the New Testament, would you follow it? Of course not! The same is with anything written under the Old. It doesn’t have to ‘FLATLY’ contradict in order to be contrary. However, they were added because of their ability to prove that they were prophets of God.

Mr. Waters says, “When you can explain why the Pharisees, who sought to entrap Jesus in His words so they could kill Him, did not formally charge Him with teaching contrary to Moses then you will have gained back some of the credibility you have lost by your illogical and unscriptural reasoning and argumentation.” Mr. Waters I really do not care now if I gain back some of my credibility with you. You won’t listen to reason anyways. You still deny that Jesus, the Son of God, preached HIS DOCTRINE! But, to try to gain my credibility, let’s look at why they didn’t formally charge Him with teaching contrary to Moses.

This is from the account in Matthew 19. When Jesus was asked about putting away for any cause, he gave them a verse of scripture. Mr. Waters, who did he quote? He quoted Moses. He used the very words of Moses. They didn’t like this answer and asked why did Moses say to give writing of divorcement. Jesus told them that he did it because of the hardness of their hearts. It was put there to their shame. Jesus said that it wasn’t this way at the beginning. Can they argue with this? No, because he quoted Moses. Then He said, “And I say unto you…” How can they formally charge Him with teaching contrary to Moses, when he used Moses for his base of HIS DOCTRINE? How can they formally charge him with teaching contrary to Moses when he said that He (Jesus) says such and such? He didn’t say Moses said such and such that would be INCORRECT. He said, “I say”. They probably said, “So, who are you?”, “that’s your opinion!” Mr. Waters wants us to think that they should’ve hauled him away and killed him. Don’t you know, Mr. Waters, that they didn’t have authority to kill Jesus? (John 18:31) That would’ve been murder under the Roman Law. They couldn’t have killed him if they wanted. That’s why they had to make him look to be an enemy of Rome in order to have him put to death.

Mr. Waters says that most people don’t try to prove the impossible. I don’t know why he keeps trying then. He says I’ve failed miserably, but it is he that can’t answer any of my arguments. He just keeps telling us what we have to believe if we believe such and such. That doesn’t answer an argument that just makes things more complicated.

Mr. Waters says, “Why in the world would any gospel preacher try to show that Jesus took issue with God’s word.” Mr. Waters, what a silly argument! No one has said that Jesus took issue with God’s word! God is the one that sent him to teach God’s NEW LAW. That would be like saying God took issue with God, because God wanted to change from the old which wasn’t perfect to the new that was. We all know that God did change His Law, don’t we? You are obviously clawing at anything you can. You are loosing your grip!

No one here says that Jesus didn’t follow the Law perfectly. He didn’t preach anything that wasn’t true. When he preached the Law he would say something like ‘it is written’ or ‘have you not read’. When he preached HIS DOCTRINE as Matthew says in Matt 7:28, he would say, “I say unto you…” That’s why that Matthew says, “For he taught them as one having AUTHORITY, and not as the scribes.” (Matt 7:29) What does that mean, Mr. Waters? What does it mean that he taught as one having AUTHORITY?

Mr. Waters says, “Anyone who sets out to pit Jesus against Moses MUST have some ulterior motive and is certainly NOT endeavoring to reach the truth that God has revealed.” It was God, Mr. Waters, which sent Jesus to teach HIS DOCTRINE. Jesus says, “I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I SPEAK to the world those things which I have HEARD OF HIM.” (John 8:26) Of course, Mr. Waters would have you believe that God didn’t have anything ‘NEW’ to say at that time! That does not put Jesus against Moses, but allows Jesus to fulfill the Law of Moses. Again, Moses, as you already proclaimed, said that the Prophet would come and do that. In thus preaching the Law of HIS KINGDOM, Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses.

Mr. Waters says, “He said the Law would not pass, not one tittle (no part of it-including MDR) til all be fulfilled. Now, Shawn, you are saying Jesus CHANGED the part of the Law that dealt with divorce. You need to accept what Jesus said and retract your teaching.” Mr. Waters, the Kingdom didn’t come until all was fulfilled, but that doesn’t mean that Jesus couldn’t have been teaching the precepts of HIS KINGDOM. You are at odds with Jesus with this statement. Matthew tells us, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.” (Matt 4:23) The Kingdom wasn’t here yet and we have Jesus preaching the gospel of the KINGDOM. Wait, shouldn’t Jesus wait ‘till all is fulfilled’ before he preaches the gospel of the kingdom? No. He came to proclaim it, and proclaim it he did. Mr. Waters, before you limit the Son of God in his teaching you ought to study the scriptures!

Mr. Waters says, “You seem to think that the teaching of Jesus to the Jews is the place to start in the study and then you go to Paul.” Mr. Waters I was always taught the best place to start is at the beginning. Just like Jesus when he discussed Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, I will also start at the beginning. Why would we start with a student of Jesus (Gal 1:12), and work backwards?

Mr. Waters, I continue to extend the invitation to a formal public debate about these matters. Of course, I know that I’m not worthy to debate one as yourself, but perhaps we can find someone that is worthy. I see no reason for me to continue with this discussion on this forum, because you will not answer anyways.

Thank you, brethren, for your time. Thank you, brother Mike, for the forum in which we can discuss these matters.

Shawn Daniels
www.panachurch.com
garyshawndaniels@gmail.com

Sound and Powerful Arguments Against MDR Tradition
By Robert Waters

Do you want the truth on MDR? All honest students of the Bible do! Read the arguments I present below and be free from the clutches of a doctrine that is troublesome to Christianity--a doctrine that God actually refers to it as a "doctrine of devils."

A common teaching of our day is the idea that Jesus changed Moses' teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage (MDR) to something that is much more restrictive. Obviously, immediately prior to Jesus' teaching, God's MDR policy was stated by Moses and the gist was: A divorced woman could "go be another man's wife." But immediately after Jesus' teaching this supposed "new law," God's policy then was: "A divorced woman or man commits adultery by marrying again." It is argued by many that only the innocent person, i.e. the one that was faithful, may marry if he/she initiated the divorce because of fornication. This assumption has been the root of enormous problems in the Lord's church.

The basic problem with the above noted doctrine is that Jesus was NOT taking issue with Moses on MDR, but with the Jewish practice of "putting away" without giving the bill of divorcement that would free the woman. The key word in the MDR texts is "apoluo," meaning "repudiate, put away, send away." Thus, when Jesus taught that "a put away" person commits adultery if he/she marries another He was taking about one that had not been given the bill of divorcement according to Moses (Deut. 24:1-4).

The most obvious and most powerful argument against the traditional view on MDR is that it cannot be true unless Jesus flatly contradicted Moses’ teaching on the matter. Had Jesus been guilty of this, it would have gotten Him into trouble. Couple this with Jesus' promise not to do away with any part of the Law until "all is fulfilled" (Matt. 5:17-19) and you have a very strong argument against the traditional teaching on MDR. This argument is so strong it destroys any thoughts of a foundation for the traditional teaching that often requires persons to break up their homes and "unmarried" (1Cor. 7: 7,9) individuals to remain celibate.

Another related argument is that, although the Pharisees sought to entrap Jesus in His words in order to find Him guilty of something for which they could kill Him, they did not charge Him with contradicting Moses on MDR. Thus, they apparently did not understand Him to have taught contrary to Moses. Therefore, unlike some people today, these men of Jesus’ day, who understood His words far better than we can, did not hear Him say that a divorce is no longer a divorce unless it was done because of adultery. Nor did they hear Him say that all divorcees who are remarried are living in adultery. Unfortunately, this argument is often completely ignored. Why is this argument not accepted? Some have argued, "A question does not prove anything." I propose to show you, from the scripture below, that this is indeed a valid and powerful argument.

In writing to the church at Galatia the apostle Paul made an argument that follows the same line of logic as the one I have noted that is often ignored. He said (Gal 5:11): "Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching that circumcision is necessary, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the cross wouldn't be offensive anymore (GW)."

The biggest problem in the church at Galatia was that some were teaching justification by the Law of Moses and that circumcision was essential. The above passage, which is basically a question, was an argument—a valid and powerful argument. Paul argues that he is not still teaching circumcision (as was the case before his conversion) because if he were the Jews would not be persecuting him. Thus, instead of stating outright that he is not contending for circumcision, as some may have charged, he presents an argument in the form of a question.
Now, if Paul can use this kind of argumentation, and we can see the power of it, why can we not use the same type of argumentation and see the power of it when it comes to the MDR issue?
If Jesus had indeed taught contrary to the Law on MDR why would the Pharisees, who continually sought this very type of declaration from Jesus so they could kill Him, not use His words against Him? Why did they not say at Jesus' trial, "This man has taught contrary to Moses by saying we not only cannot divorce, unless it is for adultery, but also all who have done so are now living in adultery"? Only one answer makes sense: Jesus did not say what some attribute to Him. If He had, He would have contradicted Moses and been viewed as a transgressor of the current Law. And the only way to logically explain this is that any adultery that is committed after "putting away" is because no "bill of divorcement" was presented that would actually end the marriage according to the command of God (Deut. 24:1; Mark 10:3). Thus, Jesus was not dealing with divorce, as defined by God, but with unscriptural divorce (merely putting away) as abused by unfaithful and treacherous men.

Rather than assume that Jesus taught something that has consequences we cannot accept, we must believe what Jesus actually said. Some try to prove from the context that Jesus had divorce, as we understand it, in mind but the context does not bear this out. If the context indicates that Jesus had divorce in mind in the discussion recorded in Matt. 19, why do we have no indication that the Pharisees used Jesus' teaching against Him?


www.TotalHealth.bz

Did The Apostle Paul Teach Celibacy?
A Study of a Proof Text

It has been asserted by some that the apostle Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, taught that persons divorced must remain celibate. The assertion is based upon what they contend is clearly said in 7:10,11. Let us look at the passage closely and see if Paul indeed taught what is attributed to him.

Below are two renderings, one from KJV and the other from Weymouth version:

[1Co 7:10,11] – “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife” (KJV).

[1Co 7:11] – “Or if she has already left him, let her either remain as she is or be reconciled to him; and that a husband is not to send away his wife” (Weymouth N.T.).

Sometimes a passage appears to the reader to support a certain thinking or doctrine, but upon closer examination it is clearly seen that such is not the case. For example, the apostle Paul wrote:

[Ro 10:10] "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

I know of no religious group that believes that one may be saved by merely making a confession. Thus, most understand the above passage to not be teaching that salvation is based upon confession alone.

Here is another example:
[Ac 10:43] "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."

Though some take what to them appears to be a clear passage and argue that all one must do is accept Jesus as Lord, virtually no one understands this passage to teach that merely believing in the historical Jesus will result in salvation (John 12:48). One who truly seeks the truth will learn that the word "believeth" is comprehensive and includes obedience in other matters.

Likewise, there are problems with the claim that the phrase, "let her remain unmarried" means a person who is divorced is to remain celibate. Let us note some of those problems and suggest what was the true meaning.

First, Let us examine some views of the passage under study (1Cor 7:10,11):
#1. The passage teaches that a divorced person must be reconciled to his/her spouse or remain celibate the rest of their life.
#2. The passage teaches that a divorced person, during the time of “the present distress” is commanded to remain celibate.
#3. The discussion pertaining to the "unmarried" ends at verse 9, but with verse 10 he begins discussion that pertains to the married. Thus, the context of the passage indicates that those divorced are not under consideration. Rather, the inspired instruction is applicable to a couple that is separated. The apostle speaks of the possibility of one in a marriage becoming unhappy to the point that he “departs”, which is from "chorizo" - "to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away:--depart, put asunder, separate." In such case, they are instructed to remain in that state while trying to work things out.

The latter, above, is my position and I shall endeavor to present ample evidence to support it. But first, let us look at some problems associated with #1 and #2.

View #1 - This view is not consistent with “traditional” MDR teachings as purportedly supported by other passages. For example:

1 Cor. 7:39 - The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

Matt. 19:9 – The cause for the divorce (“for fornication”) allowing the “innocent” person in the divorce, where fornication took place, to remarry, is not consistent with the idea that Paul demanded celibacy in the case of divorce. The apostle Paul did not give any indication (in verses 10,11) that the cause of any departure was an issue. Thus, he evidently did not have in mind a couple that had divorced. Rather, he dealt with the issue of one departing or leaving, resulting in a separation, and the evident purpose of his words are that reconciliation (not remarriage) might take place.

[Another problem with view #1 is that while most contend that Paul is teaching the couple must reconcile or remain celibate until the death of the other spouse, they unwittingly force the conclusion that God has made a law that could be circumscribed by committing a sin - the sin of murder. Thus, the very foundation that God requires celibacy of those who have become unmarried is based upon a shaky foundation, to say the least.]

View #2 – While the phrase “the present distress” should certainly be considered while studying the entire letter, this position, alone, does not allow for full explanation of the apostle’s intent, which was evidently to encourage those who were separated to not divorce and marry another.

In the remainder of this article, I shall deal with alleged problems with position # 3, which I hold, and offer reasons for why I believe it to be the most logical exegesis.

Not a few have used the phrase “let her remain unmarried” to support the idea that Paul is talking about a couple that has divorced. Although the wording, as usually translated seems to support that idea, it is contrary to the context.

In verse 10, we see the command that the wife not depart from her husband. First, it is conjecture to conclude that “depart” in the passage under study means “divorce". Regarding the word “depart”, let us note a comment by a highly respected scholar:

STRONG (as quoted from SwordSearcher):
"[Grk. 5563] chorizo (kho-rid'-zo)
from 5561; to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away:--depart, put asunder, separate."

Bloomfield [The Greek New Testament]:
“From the use of καταλλ and the air of the context it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not, arising from misunderstandings or otherwise.”

Robertson's Word Pictures:
“But and if she depart (ean de kai chôristhêi). Third class condition, undetermined. If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she get separated (ingressive passive subjunctive)”

Thus, we must keep in mind from the beginning that what is being contemplated is a case where a woman merely leaves, or is separated, from her husband.

If one says the word “unmarried”, in verse 11, means divorced, to be consistent he must apply the same meaning to the same word where it is found in verses 8 and 9. Here the apostle says:

“I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”

Why would the apostle Paul command to let the unmarried marry in one passage and condemn it in another?

Answer:
He did not. In verse 8 and 9, the teaching is that those who do not have a marriage are to be allowed to marry, whereas verse 10 and 11 teach that the married are to remain in that state.

Indeed, it is strange that one would argue that “unmarried” in this passage (verse 11), means divorced but change his tune when the same word “unmarried” (agamos), as found in verses 8-9, is used to show that “unmarried” people, (to include those that have been divorced) are to be allowed to marry. He would then argue that "unmarried" did not refer to the divorced or offer the quibble that it only applied to certain divorced persons.

(vs 8,9) [I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn].

There does not appear to be any authorization for a Christian to divorce in any of the apostle’s teachings, and such is my view of Jesus’ teachings. Paul consistently stated the no-divorce principle: ". . . the wife should not separate from her husband . . . and the husband should not put away his wife". (This is not to say a divorce does not end the marriage.) If we are commanded to be faithful to the "wife of your youth" (Mal 2:15), according to the Law under which Jesus lived and taught, and you are forbidden to "depart" or separate from your spouse, and such is the case, then divorce is forbidden. The basis of Paul's prohibition was the long established teachings that husband and wife are one flesh and what God has joined together no man should put asunder.

The Weymouth New Testament and the Montgomery New Testament lends the most support to the probable intended meaning of the apostle as recorded in vs. 11. It reads:

Waymouth - “Or if she has already left him, let her either remain as she is or be reconciled to him; and that a husband is not to send away his wife.”

Montgomery - "or if she has already left him let her either remain as she is, or be reconciled to him), and also that a husband is not to put away his wife."

If the wife has “departed” or already left, i.e., gone out of the home back to the parents, or wherever, she is exhorted to “remain as she is”, or go back to her husband (not ex husband). Divorce is NOT underconsideration. If one or the other actually ends the marriage by divorce this text no longer applies.

Conclusion:

Again, my view is # 3 of the positions discussed previously:
#3. The discussion pertaining to the "unmarried" ends at verse 9, but with verse 10 he begins discussion that pertains to the married. Thus, the context of the passage indicates that those divorced are not under consideration. Rather, the inspired instruction is applicable to a couple that is separated. The apostle speaks of the possibility of one in a marriage becoming unhappy to the point that he “departs”, which is from "chorizo" - "to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away: --depart, put asunder, separate." In such case, they are instructed to remain in that state while trying to work things out.

I believe that to use 1Cor 7:10-11, to teach that divorced persons have no right to marry is contrary to Paul’s teachings found in 1 Tim. 4:1-3, and it is contrary to the emphasis of the entire 7th chapter (along with part of chapter 6), which is the idea of allowing marriage (in which sexual relations may properly take place) to “avoid fornication”.

The primary teaching of the passage under study is that those who are married should remain that way, and not only that but also to be faithful, which included conjugal rights (verses 4-5). If a couple should have problems and become separated, they should not make unwise and hasty decisions, especially during the time of distress (“the present distress”) but be patient and endeavor to work things out.

I have not only presented un-resolveable problems for the position, espoused by some, that the apostle Paul is teaching a life of celibacy for those divorced, but have also given a reasonable explanation of the passage showing it to be consistent with the apostle's other teachings, which is mainly that EVERYONE be allowed to have a marriage so they can avoid fornication (1Cor 7:2).

With respect, I'm going to "jump in" on this discussion at this point.

Also with respect, I would like to state that I cannot see how Brother Waters comes to the conclusion that divorce is *not* under discussion in 1 Cor. 7:10-11. I'm going to try to break down these verses in some kind of orderly manner so that perhaps we can see this point.

Before beginning, I present the two verses as they appear in the American Standard Version, so that there is no disputing over renderings (as I know Bro. Waters favors the ASV - this is not a snide or sarcastic remark, just an observation based on past discussions):

10 But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband
11 (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.

First, this passage is addressing those who are married ("but unto the married I give charge").

Second, the *principle* (from the Lord) is that the wife not depart from her husband. Whatever may happen in v. 11, the command that the Lord is giving married individuals through Paul is that they not leave or depart each other (we see the reciprocal statement for husbands at the end of v. 11).

The question, then, is what does it mean to "depart" or "leave"? Looking at the parenthetical statement in v. 11, we see Paul's command to those who break this principle not to depart or leave. Those who depart have two options: (1) they may remain unmarried, or (2) they may reconcile with their spouse.

Note that Paul tells such individuals to remain "unmarried." I do not see how one can move from being the "married" under consideration in v. 10 to the "unmarried" in v. 11 without a divorce somewhere. Yes, Paul also says to reconcile to the husband, but the use of husband there does not create difficulty for a person being single after departing. First, Paul is addressing married couples, so anyone under consideration who might do this is still currently married (and therefore, in the consideration of this passage is still the wife of that "husband"). Second, the use of husband can simply be a convenient way of referring to the individual to whom that woman was married. Telling someone to *remain* unmarried after identifying them as being married does require that there be some termination of the marriage.

Therefore, I believe that the text supports the "depart" or "leave" in these verses being the concept of divorce. I reiterate that when Paul says, "but should she depart" or "but if she departs," he is not giving permission for divorce. The COMMAND is that married couples remain married. The parenthetical statement is the command to those who break the primary command to remain together. This is similar to John's statement in 1 Jn. 2:1 -

"My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:"

Is John giving permission to sin in the second half of the verse? Certainly not! The Bible never gives permission to sin. However, John is acknowledging the fact that some might sin. In the situation that one sins, John tells us that there is a way to deal with it. The same principle applies in 1 Cor. 7. Is Paul giving permission to divorce? No! Is Paul telling people what they need to do to fix or resolve the situation should they get into it anyway? Yes!

To address one of Bro. Waters' points, how do we deal with the unmarried in v. 8 and the unmarried in v. 11? I think there are different "classes" of unmarried under consideration, as denoted by the context of Paul's statements.

The unmarried in v. 8 are those who have either never been married, or whose mate has died, i.e., those who have a right to marry under the "traditional view" of MDR. Paul instructs them to remain "even as I." Paul had the liberty to take a mate (cf. 1 Cor 9:5). However, he chose not to. These individuals would have the same liberty as Paul in this matter. When Paul says that it is good that they remain in this state, he is not necessarily calling it superior to a married state. He is simply telling the Corinthians that such a state is indeed acceptable for a Christian (it appears that one of the Corinthians' questions to him had been regarding whether one could be unmarried and still be a Christian.

Regarding the unmarried in v. 11, these are individuals who have left a marriage. The only way one gets to the unmarried commands in v. 11 is for them to have been married.

To explain the distinction another way, it is generally "allowed" for an unmarried person to marry. However, there may be certain classes of unmarried people for whom marriage is prohibited. This is no different than legally allowing the consumption of alcohol by any 21 and over but restricting that consumption for certain individuals (such as on-duty law enforcement) (note that I am not condoning alcohol; I am only using it as an example).

By way of summary:

1) God commands that married people remain so
2) God gives instruction to those who break His command to reconcile or remain unmarried
3) Because of the circumstances of their being unmarried, individuals who leave their spouses are not in the same category of unmarried as those who Paul says may marry.

Brotherly,

Carl Peterson

Carl Peterson wrote:

With respect, I'm going to "jump in" on this discussion at this point.

Rw: I’m very glad you did jump in and I appreciate very much the respect and attitude that you display in your post.

CP:
Also with respect, I would like to state that I cannot see how Brother Waters comes to the conclusion that divorce is *not* under discussion in 1 Cor. 7:10-11. I'm going to try to break down these verses in some kind of orderly manner so that perhaps we can see this point.

Before beginning, I present the two verses as they appear in the American Standard Version, so that there is no disputing over renderings (as I know Bro. Waters favors the ASV - this is not a snide or sarcastic remark, just an observation based on past discussions):

10 But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband
11 (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.

First, this passage is addressing those who are married ("but unto the married I give charge").

Rw: Indeed, they are married, not divorced; but you need to PROVE that there is a legal divorce somewhere in Paul’s discussion. Did he not already deal with the “unmarried?” And did he not say “let them marry”?

CP:
Second, the *principle* (from the Lord) is that the wife not depart from her husband. Whatever may happen in v. 11, the command that the Lord is giving married individuals through Paul is that they not leave or depart each other (we see the reciprocal statement for husbands at the end of v. 11).

The question, then, is what does it mean to "depart" or "leave"? Looking at the parenthetical statement in v. 11, we see Paul's command to those who break this principle not to depart or leave. Those who depart have two options: (1) they may remain unmarried, or (2) they may reconcile with their spouse.

Rw: I think you are dead wrong about the meaning of “depart.” You say it means “leave.” I think it means what it says. Traditional teachers insist it means divorce, which is not apparent by the context or the word.

What ever happened to the idea that a couple could be in the “separated” state BEFORE a divorce is actually accomplished. If “leave” means divorce what about cases where one gets angry and leaves, but comes back. Were they divorced? Obviously they were not. Those who seek to defend the traditional position seem to need to change the meaning of divorce. Jessie Jenkins article, which I reviewed in “Gospel Truths,” took the position that a separation is a divorce. Funny, God did not so define it nor do our laws. Thus, it is apparent that some brethren will say anything to defend tradition.

The options are correct, but you are not taking into account that a divorce ends the marriage according to Paul, because he said to let the “unmarried” marry. One who is divorced is “unmarried” and that is not debatable.

Also, you are not taking into account that Paul’s instructions are in view of the “present distress.” Thus, even if he were talking about divorce it would not be applicable when there was no “present distress.”

The fact that the “exception clause” is not mentioned is simply overlooked by those who seek to defend the traditional position. It seems evident to me that since Paul did not mention the exception clause the traditional position has no leg to stand on. Jesus was apparently NOT saying what most disciples contend He said.

CP:
Note that Paul tells such individuals to remain "unmarried." I do not see how one can move from being the "married" under consideration in v. 10 to the "unmarried" in v. 11 without a divorce somewhere.

Rw: If you had actually read the article that you were supposedly responding to you would have seen that the problem with this verse is in the translation. I showed some translations that support the idea that “unmarried” in verse 11 does not mean they were divorced. I also presented some comments from respected commentators.

CP:
Second, the use of husband can simply be a convenient way of referring to the individual to whom that woman was married. Telling someone to *remain* unmarried after identifying them as being married does require that there be some termination of the marriage.

Rw: No, the above is false. None of the commentators I have checked come out and say divorce was under consideration. Most speak of “depart” as meaning separation. Bloomfield makes it clear that he believed that divorce was not under consideration:

Bloomfield
“From the use of ________ and the air of the content it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not, arising from misunderstandings or otherwise.” (The Greek word, I think for “reconcile,” would not copy to the list, but you get the point.)

Barnes said: “Let her remain unmarried - That is, let her not marry another.”

Rw: Indeed, she should not marry another because she is still married, though separated, but which obviously is not divorce.

JFB
“1Co 7:11 - But and if she depart--or "be separated." If the sin of separation has been committed, that of a new marriage is not to be added (Mat_5:32). “

“be reconciled--by appeasing her husband's displeasure, and recovering his good will.”

Rw: If the word translated “depart” means divorce then if they divorced they would have to marry again. JFB says they just need to reconcile. He is correct.

CP:
Therefore, I believe that the text supports the "depart" or "leave" in these verses being the concept of divorce. I reiterate that when Paul says, "but should she depart" or "but if she departs," he is not giving permission for divorce. The COMMAND is that married couples remain married. The parenthetical statement is the command to those who break the primary command to remain together. This is similar to John's statement in 1 Jn. 2:1 –

Rw: So, are you saying God rescinded His divorce law? Can’t divorce at all under any circumstances? Remember, Paul said not one word about any exception, thus if you try to take what Paul said and twist it to conform to your traditional teaching then you have Paul teaching against divorce—any divorce for any reason. You know it is true and that it is a serious problem for your position.

CP:
To address one of Bro. Waters' points, how do we deal with the unmarried in v. 8 and the unmarried in v. 11? I think there are different "classes" of unmarried under consideration, as denoted by the context of Paul's statements.

The unmarried in v. 8 are those who have either never been married, or whose mate has died, i.e., those who have a right to marry under the "traditional view" of MDR.

Rw:
You need it to be the way you assert, but there is no evidence it is true. I prefer to believe what Paul SAID rather than the traditional interpretation, which apparently is a twisting of the scripture to give credence to an errant conclusion as to what is thought that Jesus taught.

CP:
Paul instructs them to remain "even as I." Paul had the liberty to take a mate (cf. 1 Cor 9:5). However, he chose not to. These individuals would have the same liberty as Paul in this matter. When Paul says that it is good that they remain in this state, he is not necessarily calling it superior to a married state. He is simply telling the Corinthians that such a state is indeed acceptable for a Christian (it appears that one of the Corinthians' questions to him had been regarding whether one could be unmarried and still be a Christian.

Rw: Once again, you are not considering the “present distress” – you are ignoring it. And, you are ignoring the fact that Paul said “let them marry” for “they sin not.” He is speaking to those who are “unmarried” and “loosed.” The idea that one is not loosed unless the divorce in initiated because the other committed adultery in not found in Paul’s teachings, and you know it. Remember, Paul is speaking to Christians and answering questions. If a divorce was not a divorce unless initiated for fornication, or it left either party bound, Paul would have said so, don’t you think? And you know he did not say as much. You have to read between the line. Since he did not go there any interpretation regarding Jesus’ teaching to the Jews to the contrary, and trying to make it Christian doctrine, is suspect to be error. And since the Jews apparently did not understand Jesus to have contradicted Moses, which the traditional position has Him doing, the traditional position must be wrong. I have presented an explanation of Jesus’ teaching that cannot be criticized by saying it is not hermeneutically sound. The problem with it is that it is against tradition. Basically, “apoluo” which is usually translated “put away” means just what it says. The problem for the traditional position is that “put away” is not a divorce according to the way Moses defined it.

CP:
Regarding the unmarried in v. 11, these are individuals who have left a marriage. The only way one gets to the unmarried commands in v. 11 is for them to have been married.

Rw: The context does not indicate that a divorce took place. But then you apparently think a separation is a divorce, or at least are confused on the matter.

CP:
To explain the distinction another way, it is generally "allowed" for an unmarried person to marry. However, there may be certain classes of unmarried people for whom marriage is prohibited.

Rw: Indeed, there are people who are forbidden to marry, but they who so do not only have no authority for their actions but also are said to be teaching “doctrines of devils. They help Satan by taking away God’s gift of divorce when a marriage fails (Deut. 24:1,2), and they also help him by taking away marriage, which is God’s tool for people to avoid fornication (1Cor7:1,2).

Brotherly,
Robert Waters

When I began seriously studying the subject of divorce and remarriage (about 12 years ago) I gradually moved away from the “traditional” position that, “divorce is not sinful, but remarriage is.” Olan Hicks and others had been putting forward some strong arguments defending the teaching that “divorce is wrong, marriage is right.” However, after much study and debate, I admit that I was wrong on that point, and it is a very significant matter.

There are a couple of passages that must be harmonized:
1) “God hates divorce” (Mal. 2:16 Living Bible) and
2) Jeremiah 3:8, where we see that God divorced Israel. "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also."

Some, in an effort to harmonize these passages, have offered quite pitiful explanations. The most common argument is that, the marriage was not literal and therefore does not apply. Nevertheless, it was called a marriage and no logical or reasonable argument against that fact has been offered. Thus, the case in point stands as an example (1Cor 10:11).

Others have argued that it was okay for God to divorce but not okay for us to do it. Thus, they have God setting an example for us but then later, supposedly, telling us that we must not follow that example. (In a similar manner some seek to justify their contention that Jesus taught contrary to the Law, under which he lived, in teaching “new doctrine” on divorce and remarriage.) Is God inconsistent? Absolutely not! On occasions, God has been angry with men (Deut. 29:23). This demonstrates that anger is not sinful. Paul teaches us to, “Be angry but do not sin” (Ephesians 4:26). This is easy to understand, and if you can understand this you can understand that divorce, under certain circumstances, is not sinful for the same reasons.
But what about the passage that says God hates divorce? First, let us take a look at the passage from some of the most trusted versions:

King James: Malachi 2:16
For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

American Standard Malachi 2:16
For I hate putting away, saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, and him that covereth his garment with violence, saith Jehovah of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Young's Bible Malachi 2:16
For [I] hate sending away, said Jehovah, God of Israel, And He [who] hath covered violence with his clothing, said Jehovah of Hosts, And ye have been watchful over your spirit, And ye do not deal treacherously.

Darby's Bible Malachi 2:16
(for I hate putting away, saith Jehovah the God of Israel;) and he covereth with violence his garment, saith Jehovah of hosts: take heed then to your spirit, that ye deal not unfaithfully.
Webster's Bible Malachi 2:16

For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith, that he hateth putting away: for [one] covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

After observing that there is an obvious difference in opinion as to how the word shalach should be translated, one has to wonder if our ability to understand the whole divorce and remarriage issue doesn’t hinge on the difference between “put away” and “divorce.”

Vines says shalach means: "to send, stretch forth, get rid of."
Consider also Strong’s definition of shalach:
[Heb. 7971] shalach (shaw-lakh')
“a primitive root; to send away, for, or out (in a great variety of applications):--X any wise, appoint, bring (on the way), cast (away, out), conduct, X earnestly, forsake, give (up), grow long, lay, leave, let depart (down, go, loose), push away, put (away, forth, in, out), reach forth, send (away, forth, out), set, shoot (forth, out), sow, spread, stretch forth (out).”
It is apparent that Mr. Strong understood the language to refer to something less than divorce, which according to God requires a legal document (Deut. 24:1). Not only is there no mention of divorce in Mal 2:16, it is apparent that the sinful thing alluded to in the text was “treachery,” which is defined as “betrayal.” Such treachery was, and is today, being practiced by Jewish men who put away their wives but not freeing them with a “writ of divorce” according to the command of Moses. Of what did Jesus say these men were guilty when they “put away” their wives and married another (Matt. 19:9)? He said they were guilty of adultery (Moichao), not fornication (porneia) used in the "exception clause". Although some have concluded from the Pharisees’ comment that divorce was merely something Moses suffered (permitted), Jesus, in the next verse, told them that it was something that Moses actually “commanded” them to do under the circumstances and in the context of the discussion (Mark 10:3,5). Certainly Moses was not commanding a man to divorce his faithful wife, for such could not be done without committing “treachery,” which is what God hates. He simply commanded those who were determined to get rid of a wife to give them legal papers whereby they could show that they were free from the marriage, and thus be able to marry another without being charged with adultery. In doing so, Moses clearly defined “divorce” as having three clear and distinct parts, not just one – the sending away, the bill of divorcement and putting it into her hand (Deut. 24:1-3).

Incidentally, no exception was mentioned in Mark’s account. Thus, evidently the “exception clause” was not applicable to those in the audience because they were indeed unscripturally putting away their wives to whom they were scripturally/legally married. Jesus did, however, for the record give an “exception,” as found in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. If “porneia” was being committed, as would be the case if the marriage was not scriptural or legal, one could and should simply “put away”, or “send away” the illicit sexual partner. No papers for divorce would be needed because there was no legal marriage to dissolve. They simply would need to separate, as was the case in the command found in Ezra 10:11: “Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.”

The word translated “separate” is: [Heb. 914] badal(baw-dal') a primitive root; to divide (in variation senses literally or figuratively, separate, distinguish, differ, select, etc.):-- (make, put) difference, divide (asunder), (make) separate (self, -ation), sever (out), X utterly. (Strong's)
There was no command to divorce those women (as we define the word today), why? They were not legal marriages. The relationships were not pleasing to God and simply needed to be ended by permanent separation. (See 1 Cor. 5; Mt. 14:3, 4; Lev. 20:21 and Gen 28:6).

I recently heard on a radio talk show a man talking about the overturn of homosexual marriages that were illegally allowed in a certain state. He stated that there would be no need for a divorce because there was no legal marriage. He was exactly right and this is the type of thing involved in the “exception clause” that many misunderstand, misapply and use to justify the practice of “forbidding to marry”, which God put into the catalog of “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

Conclusion:

God divorced Israel after it became apparent that there was not going to be repentance and a renewed relationship. Under the same circumstances divorce is the right thing to do, whether it is initiated by the guilty one that “put away” or the one that had diligently tried to save the relationship. (Men of our day errantly and foolishly make a big issue regarding who initiates the divorce, which they call the "putting away.") After we understand that there is a difference in one being put away and one being divorced we can easily see that the traditional teaching that one who has been divorced is forbidden to marry (or will commit adultery if he does), is without scriptural support.

God gave the divorce Law for a purpose (Deut. 24:1-4). To say that He hates it when it is used as intended is to say He hates his own Law. We all hate it when a marriage does not work, but to say "God hates divorce" and assert that divorce is sinful is inaccurate.

Did Jesus Contradict, Disagree with, Change, or Break the Law of Moses?
by Robert Waters
http://www.totalhealth.bz/jesus-contradict-moses.htm

Who seeks to gain by promoting the idea that Jesus violated the Law of Moses? The answer is very simple—the enemies of Jesus. But why would the enemies of Jesus gain from promoting such an idea? Again, the answer is very simple—if Jesus violated the Law of Moses (LOM), under which He lived and was obligated to obey, He committed sin and was not the Messiah. Thus, the enemies of Jesus set up Web sites and publish articles, etc., in their endeavor to promote the idea that Jesus sinned by teaching contrary to Moses on various issues. This is to be expected. But what is astonishing and distressing is the fact that there are some who profess to be friends of Jesus who make the same charges against our Lord. The motivation for their teaching may be different, but the consequences are the same.

In spite of the noted consequences of arguing that Jesus contradicted the Law, some brethren are persistent in their effort to point out a passage that supports their assertion. Below are some examples (comments from David Willis from Focus On Truth list): “Jesus taught many parts of His gospel before He died and the gospel conflicts with the LOM in many areas.” “To teach that one must be baptized in order to go to heaven (which Jesus taught) is as much in conflict with the LOM as it would be for me to teach today that one must be circumcised.”

Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!
“Would a righteous Jew who died that day without faith in Jesus and with out being baptized be able to enter God's kingdom?” “If Jesus had told Jews that they would not sin by eating all kinds of meat, would that be in conflict with the LOM?”

In this article I endeavor to deal with the arguments made by enemies/friends of Jesus who labor to demonstrate that Jesus contradicted or broke the Law of Moses.

In Jesus’ day, even some of His own followers misunderstood His teaching. In John 6:48-66, Jesus explained that we are to eat His flesh, and drink His blood. Some of the Jews, thinking that He was advocating literal cannibalism, took exception to the comment. Even some of His own disciples left Him over this matter. The Messiah was not promoting eating human flesh and drinking human blood. He consistently taught and practiced God’s laws. (This text is dealt with in detail later in this article.)

The material to follow, which deals with the various passages that some pervert, might be an article written by some other author, comments by noted commentators, comments from me, or a combination of the above. Below is a hyperlinked index for your convenience:

Index:
Matthew 12:1-2 (Was Jesus a violator of the Sabbath?)

John 3:5 (Jesus’ teaching regarding baptism)

Mark 7:19 (“purging all meats”)

Sermon on the Mount texts that contain “but I say unto you”

“The Law and the Prophets Were Until John”
(Matthew 11:13; Luke 16:16)

The “Hedge” (just in case the “Jesus Contradicted Moses” argument fails)
John 6:48-66 (“Eat my flesh, and drink my blood”)

Conclusion

Was Jesus a Violator of the Sabbath?
Matthew 12:1-2
By doing an Internet search for the phrase “Did Jesus violate the Sabbath?” I found several interesting articles. In virtually all of them the author labored to point out that Jesus did not violate the Sabbath and endeavored to show that the Jews falsely accused Jesus. The only article I found that said Jesus contradicted the Law was on a site owned by a Jew—an admitted enemy of Jesus, who thinks that Jesus was an imposter. (See the following: http://www.messiahtruth.com/sinless.html .)

An article written by Irvin Himmel contained the following paragraph: “Were Jesus and his disciples guilty of violating God's law pertaining to the Sabbath, even technically speaking? If so, Jesus was a transgressor, legally speaking, therefore technically a sinner! John says that ‘sin is the transgression of the law’ (John 3:4), but Peter reminds us that Jesus ‘did no sin’ (1 Pet. 2:22); hence, Jesus was not a transgressor, legally or otherwise!”

Unless the above can be proven to be faulty reasoning, any doctrine that is dependent upon the idea that Jesus contradicted the Law for its veracity is not only questionable but also is not on solid ground.

Did Jesus Violate the Sabbath?
Irvin Himmel
One Sabbath when Jesus and his disciples were walking through fields of grain, the disciples were hungry and began plucking ears of corn to eat. The Pharisees, eager to find fault with Jesus, made the charge that the disciples were breaking the law.

On another occasion, Jesus healed a man at the pool of Bethesda, telling him to take up his bed and walk. Because it was the Sabbath, the Jews accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing on that day, and they charged the healed man with violating the Sabbath by carrying his bed on that day (John 5).

Leroy Garrett, writing in his Restoration Review, Dec., 1971, and defending situation ethics, says, "Legally speaking, Jesus violated Sabbath laws, but it was always for persons that he did so." From this premise he reasons to the conclusion that in certain situations we may "bypass a biblical principle" in order to honor "the law of love."

Were Jesus and his disciples guilty of violating God's law pertaining to the Sabbath, even technically speaking? If so, Jesus was a transgressor, legally speaking, therefore technically a sinner! John says that "sin is the transgression of the law" (John 3:4), but Peter reminds us that Jesus "did no sin" (1 Pet. 2:22); hence, Jesus was not a transgressor, legally or otherwise!

Jesus replied to the Pharisees who accused his disciples of breaking the law by plucking grain and rubbing it in their hands on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1,2; Lk 6:1, 2), by calling attention to the case of David. When David was being pursued by Saul, he went to the house of God and ate the sacred showbread. The law forbade any but priests to eat this bread (Lev. 24:9). David clearly violated divine law. Jesus said David ate that "which was not lawful for him to eat" (Matt. 12:4). But the disciples had not violated divine law. Jesus said they were "guiltless." The Pharisees condoned David's action although it was "not lawful," yet they "condemned the guiltless" by falsely accusing the disciples. Jesus exposed their inconsistency and hypocrisy.

Also, Jesus called attention to the priests who, by the very nature of their duties, worked on the Sabbath day. According to the Jewish interpretations of the Sabbath law, the priests profaned the day, yet even the Pharisees counted them blameless. This case further illustrated their inconsistencies in accusing Christ's disciples falsely.

What God's law pertaining to the Sabbath actually said was one thing; what Jewish tradition said was another. Jesus did not admit that either he or his disciples had violated the divine law of the Sabbath in any sense -- legally, technically, or otherwise. The only violation was of man-made interpretations of the Sabbath law.

Jesus laid bare the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and freed his disciples from false methods of observing the Sabbath. He differentiated between true obligations and endless burdensome rules that were of human origin that had perverted the Sabbath law.

Our Lord taught nothing that would authorize us to "bypass a biblical principle" in any situation. True divine principles do not have to be bypassed to honor love, mercy, and the authority of Christ. Jesus broke with the traditions of the elders, but he did not violate God's law, even technically.

-- Via Truth Magazine XVII: 7, p. 12, December 14, 1972

Links to other articles regarding the Sabbath:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/did_jesus_violate_the_sabbath
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/ChristianSituationEthics.htm
http://www.new-life.net/faq004.htm
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn01/commandmentsjesusbreak.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave99.htm
http://www.gospelway.com/topics/bible/jesus_sabbath.php
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesusignorelaw.html
http://www.lcg.org/cgi-bin/tw/magazine/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine36&item=1115662605


Jesus’ Teaching Regarding Baptism
John 3:5
(John 3:5) 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.
It is being argued that Jesus’ teaching regarding baptism was contrary to the Law of Moses. Note the following:

“You can NOT be serious to try to say that what Jesus taught about faith and baptism is consistent with the plan of salvation under the LOM. It is NOT. Jesus taught something NEW. No one had to be baptized to be saved under the LOM. Show me a passage in the OT that says that. What Jesus said about salvation conflicted with the LOM just as much as it would conflict with the gospel to require circumcision today.” (David Willis – Focus on Truth)

Willis argued: “Would it be contrary to the gospel to require circumcision in order to be saved today? If so, then how could it NOT be contrary to the LOM for Christ to require baptism which was NOT required for salvation under the LOM?”

The same writer noted above wrote:
“A Jew did not have to have faith in Jesus or be baptized to be saved under the LOM. Even after Jesus spoke His gospel message about faith and baptism, a Jew who died before Jesus died on the cross did not face damnation because he was not baptized.”

Consider the above statement in light of the following passages:

John 8:24 “…If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”
Luke 7:29-30 “And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.”
The teaching of John 3:5, according to David Willis, is supposed to be proof that Jesus contradicted the Law. But let us take a close look at the text to see if he is correct. The fact that Jesus taught only Old Testament doctrine--nothing new--is born out by the context. Jesus noted that a master teacher should have understood and known what Jesus was talking about. What, other than the Old Testament scriptures, would have enabled this teacher of the Law to have known (not just understood) what Jesus said he should have known?

Look at the text. I have highlighted significant words for emphasis.

John 3:5 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.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

John 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Verse 14 is a reference to an Old Testament teaching regarding Jesus and the new birth that involved baptism. The people were being bitten by snakes and many were dying. Moses put a snake on a pole made of brass and told the people to look upon it. When they looked they were healed (Numbers 21:8, 9). If we look upon Jesus and obey by being baptized, we will be saved by our faith just as those in the wilderness who looked upon the serpent were healed by their faith and obedience. This text on baptism alludes to Jesus as the saving power that man can receive by faith—a teaching that was presented long before as Old Testament teaching.

Commentaries:
Barnes: John 3:10 -
A master of Israel - A “teacher” of Israel; the same word that in the second verse is translated “teacher.” As such a teacher he ought to have understood this doctrine. It was not new, but was clearly taught in the Old Testament. See particularly Psa_51:10, Psa_51:16-17; Eze_11:19; Eze_36:26. It may seem surprising that a man whose business it was to teach the people should be a stranger to so plain and important a doctrine; but when worldly-minded men are placed in offices of religion when they seek those offices for the sake of ease or reputation, it is no wonder that they are strangers to the plain truths of the Bible; and there have been many, and there are still, who are in the ministry itself, to whom the plainest doctrines of the gospel are obscure. No man can understand the Bible fully unless he is a humble Christian, and the easiest way to comprehend the truths of religion is to give the heart to God and live to his glory. A child thus may have more real knowledge of the way of salvation than many who are pretended masters and teachers of Israel, Joh_7:17; Mat_11:25; Psa_8:2, compared with Mat_21:16.

Of Israel - Of the Jews; of the Jewish nation.

Barnes’ comments were excellent but we must not overlook JFB. He has a false idea about the necessity of baptism, but note what he said about whether Nicodemus should have known (from the O.T. scriptures) about Jesus’ teaching on baptism: (John 3:10) “Art thou a master of Israel , etc. - Hast thou taken upon thee to guide the blind into the way of truth; and yet knowest not that truth thyself? Dost thou command proselytes to be baptized with water, as an emblem of a new birth; and art thou unacquainted with the cause, necessity, nature, and effects of that new birth? How many masters are there still in Israel who are in this respect deplorably ignorant; and, strange to tell, publish their ignorance and folly in the sight of the sun, by writing and speaking against the thing itself! It is strange that such people cannot keep their own secret.”

So, we have not just one but TWO respected scholars, both of which held the traditional MDR view, who were very confident that the idea that Jesus taught something new in presenting John 3:5, is not a possibility. I suppose if these guys knew that their comments actually hurt their MDR doctrine they might have been tempted to say something that harmonized with their doctrine.

Willis’ reply:
“Because He expected Nicodemus to understand does not mean that He expected Nicodemus to already know it before Jesus SAID it! It was NEW.”

From the context it is apparent that Jesus said Nicodemus should have KNOWN what he was talking about—not just understood from His explanation. Thus, the argument that Jesus contradicted the Law in His teaching regarding the new birth is refuted by Jesus Himself.

“Purging all Meats”
Mark 7:19
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesusignorelaw.html
“Matt. 15.11//Mark 7:15. These words alter or ignore no Jewish law; they merely stress the obvious point that it is the disobedience, not the food itself, that is the essence of the violation. (The interpretive comment in Mark 7:19 can be seen as a significant alteration in meaning; however, there are strong reasons to doubt that it is part of the original text: The participle construction hangs awkwardly with no obvious syntactical connection to what surrounds it; the word "foods" is a hapax legomemon (not found anywhere else in the NT); and Mark's usual method of making such "side comments" is entirely different. [Guelich's commentary on Mark, 378])”

Article posted to Focus On Truth by Christina Dozier:

It has been said that the passage below teaches that Jesus cleansed all meats. I just don't see how we can get that idea from what is said.

Mar 7:18-19 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" ({Thus He} declared all foods clean.)
The KJV says:

Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
The Interlinear says:

Mark 7:18 And he says to them: Thus also ye undiscerning are? do ye not understand that everything from without entering into a man cannot him to defile, 19 because it enters not of him into the heart but into the belly, and into the drain goes out, purging all foods?
The NKJV says:

Mar 7:18-19 So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, "because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"[fn5]
Webster says:

Mar 7:18-19 And he saith to them, Are ye so void of understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him. Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all kinds of food.
First, what Jesus seems to be saying--to me anyway--is that BECAUSE food goes not into a man's heart but into his belly and then out into the draught, that's WHY it doesn't defile and that's why it's clean. Did food not go into the belly and out into the draught under the Law of Moses? Of course it did. In my opinion, if we're going to take this to mean ANY food is okay, we could also take it to mean any drug is okay. Drugs go into the belly and out, don't they?

Second, I think His point is not that unclean meats are suddenly clean but that it's ALWAYS been the heart that really matters. A man can eat only clean meat all his life and not be right with God if his heart is wrong.

Third, most of these translations have Jesus asking a question. HE says, "Don't you understand that it's not what goes in that defiles but rather what goes out because what goes in goes not into the heart but into the belly and then out again into the drain and it all gets cleaned?" I guess some translators decided to take that last part out of Jesus' mouth and put it into the writer's mouth and have the writer say Jesus was cleansing all meat.

I don't think Jesus was saying, "Hey, boys, guess what! After I'm resurrected you're gonna get to eat pork and bacon!" *I* think Jesus is just saying that our words, our deeds, our actions, our thoughts--all the things that proceed from our hearts--that's what defiles us. To me it's like saying:

1 Peter 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
That doesn't mean we can suddenly go streaking down the highway. It just means that what's IMPORTANT is the hidden man of the heart. Our heart is what's going to make us right with God, or our heart is what's going to get us in trouble with God.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if Jesus WAS cleansing all meats, Peter sure didn't pick up on it. All the way over in Acts 10 he's still not eating unclean meat. Did an inspired man not get the meaning of Jesus' words but we do?

Christina
http://www.mykentuckybooks.com/br> http://www.giveshare.org/Health/health5.html

The RSV renders verse 19, "since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on? (Thus He declared all foods clean.)." This is an unwarranted addition to Scripture. The context is verses 1-5, which describe the Pharisees’ practice of always washing their hands before eating, and a host of other traditions of washing pots and cups. The subject is not clean and unclean meats, but unclean hands. Jesus showed that unclean thoughts are the things that most defile a man, not just unwashed hands, verses 20-23. The parallel passage to Mark 7 is Matthew 15. After explaining that inner defilement of the mind is far worse than defilement of the body, Jesus concluded, "These are the things which defile a man [evil thoughts, adulteries, etc., described in Matthew 15:18-19: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man," verse 20. Ceremonial washing of the hands and cups doesn’t affect the inner man. Jesus was not speaking against sanitary, hygienic cleansing with water, either. He criticized the fanatical ceremonial practices of the Pharisees, who cleaned up the outside, but inside were rotten to the core, Matthew 23:25. We need to keep the inside and outside of our bodies pure before God. The Pharisees watched every word and movement Jesus made. They falsely accused Him of breaking the Sabbath, and claimed that He blasphemed when He said God was His Father, John 5:18. But never did any Jew accuse Jesus of eating, or advocating the eating of, unclean meats. Jesus said, “He did not come to destroy the Law of God, but to fulfill and keep it,” Matthew 5:17.

Barnes Commentary:

Mar 7:1-23 -
See this passage explained in the notes at Mat. 15:1-20.

Mar_7:1
Came from Jerusalem - Probably to observe his conduct, and to find matter of accusation against him.

Mar_7:2
Defiled hands - The hands were considered defiled or polluted unless they were washed previous to every meal.

Mar_7:3
Except they wash their hands oft - Our word “oft” means frequently, often. The Greek word translated “oft” has been rendered various ways. Some have said that it means “up to the wrist”— unless they washed their hands up to the wrist. Others have said up to the elbow.” There is evidence that the Pharisees had some such foolish rule as this about washing, and it is likely that they practiced it faithfully. But the Greek Word p??µ?´ (pugme¯) means properly the “fist,” and the meaning here is, “Unless they wash their hands (rubbing them) with the fist”—that is, not merely dipping the finger or hands in water as a sign of ablution, but rubbing the hands together as a ball or fist, in the usual Oriental manner when water is poured over them. Hence, the phrase comes to mean “diligently, carefully, sedulously.” - Robinson, Lexicon. The idea is, unless they pay the utmost attention to it, and do it carefully and according to rule.

The tradition - What had been handed down; not what was delivered “by writing” in the law of Moses, but what had been communicated from father to son as being proper and binding.

Mar_7:4
Except they wash - In the original, “Except they baptize.” In this place it does not mean to immerse the whole body, but only the hands. There is no evidence that the Jews washed their “whole bodies” every time they came from the market. It is probable that they often washed with the use of a very small quantity of water.

The washing of cups - In the Greek, “the baptism of cups.”

Cups - drinking vessels. Those used at their meals.

Pots - Measures of “liquids.” Vessels made of wood, used to hold wine, vinegar, etc.

Brazen Vessels - Vessels made of brass, used in cooking or otherwise. These, if much polluted, were commonly passed through the fire: if slightly polluted they were washed. Earthen vessels, if defiled, were usually broken.

Mar_7:7
For doctrines - For commands of God binding on the conscience. Imposing “your” traditions as equal in authority to the laws of God.

Mar_7:8
Laying aside - Rejecting, or making it give place to traditions; considering the traditions as superior in authority to the divine law. This was the uniform doctrine of the Pharisees. See the notes at Mat_15:1-9.

The tradition of men - What has been handed down by human beings, or what rests solely on their authority.

Mar_7:9
Full well - These words are capable of different interpretations. Some read them as a question: “Do ye do well in rejecting?” etc. Others suppose they mean “skillfully, cunningly.” “You show great cunning or art, in laying aside God’s commands and substituting in their place those of men.” Others suppose them to be ironical. “How nobly you act! From conscientious attachment to your traditions you have made void the law of God”; meaning to intimate by it that they had acted wickedly and basely.

Mar_7:17
The parable - The “obscure” and difficult remarks which He had made in Mar_7:15. The word “parable,” here, means “obscure” and “difficult saying.” They could not understand it. They had probably imbibed many of the popular notions of the Pharisees, and they could not understand why a man was not defiled by external things. It was, moreover, a doctrine of the law that men were ceremonially polluted by contact with dead bodies, etc., and they could not understand how it could be otherwise.

Mar_7:18
Cannot defile him - Cannot render his “soul” polluted; cannot make him a “sinner” so as to need this purifying as a “religious” observance.

Mar_7:19
Entereth not into his heart - Does not reach or affect the “mind,” the “soul,” and consequently cannot pollute it. Even if it should affect the “body,” yet it cannot the “soul,” and consequently cannot need to be cleansed by a religious ordinance. The notions of the Pharisees, therefore, are not founded in reason, but are mere “superstition.”

The draught - The sink, the vault. “Purging all meats.” The word “purging,” here, means to purify, to cleanse. What is thrown out of the body is the innutritious part of the food taken into the stomach, and leaving only that which is proper for the support of life; and it cannot, therefore, defile the soul.

All meals - All food; all that is taken into the body to support life. The meaning is, that the economy or process by which life is supported “purifies” or “renders nutritious” all kinds of food. The unwholesome or innutritious parts are separated, and the wholesome only are taken into the system. This agrees with all that has since been discovered of the process of digestion and of the support of life. The food taken into the stomach is by the gastric juice converted into a thick pulp called chyme. The nutritious part of this is conveyed into small vessels, and changed into a milky substance called “chyle.” This is poured by the thoracic duct into the left subclavian vein and mingles with the blood, and conveys nutriment and support to all parts of the system. The useless parts of the food are thrown off.

Mar_7:20
That which cometh out of the man - His words; the expression of his thoughts and feelings; his conduct, as the development of inward malice, anger, covetousness, lust, etc.

Defileth the man - Makes him really polluted or offensive in the sight of God. This renders the soul corrupt and abominable in his sight. See Mat_15:18-20.

Note Matthew’s version:

Mat 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

Mat 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Mat 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

Mat 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

The Sermon on the Mount
“But I say unto you”
Those who endeavor to teach that Jesus contradicted the Law so they can defend their divorce and remarriage teachings and practices assert that when Jesus said “but I say unto you” He was saying He was changing what Moses said to His new law. Let us look at the various texts to see if Jesus took issue with Moses or someone else. First, Moses’ teachings were God’s teachings. Jesus was and is God. Thus, to contend that Jesus took issue with Moses is to contend that He took issue with God–Himself. Thus, the following comments from a noted and highly respected commentator are worthy of consideration:

Barnes:
Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: Mat 5:22b But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.

Mat 5:21 -
Ye have heard - Or, this is the common interpretation among the Jews. Jesus proceeds here to comment on some prevailing opinions among the Jews; to show that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was defective; and that people needed a better righteousness, or they could not be saved. He illustrates what he meant by that better righteousness by showing that the common opinions of the scribes were erroneous.

By them of old time - This might be translated to the ancients, referring to Moses and the prophets. But it is more probable that Jesus here refers to the interpreters of the law and the prophets. He did not set himself against the law of Moses, but against the false and pernicious interpretations of the law prevalent in his time.

Thou shalt not kill - See Exo_20:13. This properly denotes taking the life of another with malice, or with an intention to murder him. The Jews understood it as meaning no more. The comment of our Saviour shows that it was spiritual, and was designed to extend to the thoughts and feelings as well as the external act.

Mat 5:22b But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment

Barnes comments: “What he condemns here is anger without a cause; that is, unjustly, rashly, hastily, where no offence has been given or intended. In that case it is evil; and it is a violation of the sixth commandment, because “he that hateth his brother, is a murderer,” 1Jo_3:15. He has a feeling which would lead him to commit murder, if it were fully acted out.”

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Barnes comments: Our Saviour in these verses explains the seventh commandment. It is probable that the Pharisees had explained this commandment, as they had the sixth, as extending only to the external act; and that they regarded evil thoughts and a wanton imagination as of little consequence, or as not forbidden by the law. Our Saviour assures them that the commandment did not regard the external act merely, but the secrets of the heart, and the movements of the eye. He declares that they who indulge a wanton desire, that they who look on a woman to increase their lust, have already, in the sight of God, violated the commandment, and committed adultery in the heart.

Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Barnes: It hath been said ... - That is, by Moses, Deu_24:1-2. The husband was directed, if he put his wife away, to give her a bill of divorce, that is a certificate of the fact she had been his wife, and that he had dissolved the marriage. There was considerable difference of opinion among the Jews for what causes the husband was permitted to do this. One of their famous schools maintained that it might be done for any cause, however trivial. The other maintained that adultery only could justify it. The truth was, however, that the husband exercised this right at pleasure; that he was judge in the case, and dismissed his wife when and for what cause he chose. And this seems to be agreeable to the law in Deuteronomy.

Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

Barnes: Thou shalt not forswear thyself - Christ here proceeds to correct another false interpretation of the law. The law respecting oaths is found in Lev_19:12, and Deu_23:23. By those laws people were forbid to perjure themselves, or to forswear, that is, swear falsely.

Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Barnes: Thine oaths - An oath is a solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed, and imprecating his vengeance, and renouncing his favor if what is affirmed is false. A false oath is called perjury, or, as in this place, forswearing.

It appears, however, from this passage, as well as from the ancient writings of the Jewish rabbins, that while the Jews professedly adhered to the law, they had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which they by no means considered to be binding. For example, they would swear by the temple, by the head, by heaven, by the earth. So long as they kept from swearing by the name Yahweh, and so long as they observed the oaths publicly taken, they seemed to consider all others as allowable, and allowedly broken. This is the abuse which Christ wished to correct. “It was the practice of swearing in common conversation, and especially swearing by created things.” To do this, he said that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his special abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control that we could not make one hair white or black.

To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God, and could not be without guilt.

It is remarkable that the sin here condemned by the Saviour prevails still in Palestine in the same form and manner referred to here. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, vol. ii. p. 284) says, “The people now use the very same sort of oaths that are mentioned and condemned by our Lord. They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, and by the temple, or what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long.”

Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion and by everything that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Mat_26:63-64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath. See Rom_1:9; Rom_9:1; Gal_1:20; Heb_6:16. Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the law of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Exo_22:11; Lev_5:1; Num_5:19; Deu_29:12, Deu_29:14.

An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exo_21:24; Lev_24:20, and Deu_19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was to be governed by different principles.

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.

The command to love our neighbor was a law of God, Lev_19:18. That we must therefore hate our enemy was an inference drawn from it by the Jews. They supposed that if we loved the one, we must of course hate the other. They were total strangers to that great, special law of religion which requires us to love both. A neighbor is literally one that lives near to us; then, one who is near to us by acts of kindness and friendship. This is its meaning here. See also Luk_10:36.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Love your enemies - There are two kinds of love, involving the same general feeling, or springing from the same fountain of good-will to all mankind, but differing so far as to admit of separation in idea. The one is that feeling by which we approve of the conduct of another, commonly called the love of complacency; the other, that by which we wish well to the person of another, though we cannot approve his conduct. This is the love of benevolence, and this love we are to bear toward our enemies. It is impossible to love the conduct of a person who curses and reviles us, who injures our person or property, or who violates all the laws of God; but, though we may hate his conduct, and suffer keenly when we are affected by it, yet we may still wish well to the person; we may pity his madness and folly; we may speak kindly of him and to him; we may return good for evil; we may aid him in the time of trial; we may seek to do him good here and to promote his eternal welfare hereafter, Rom_12:17-20. This seems to be what is meant by loving our enemies; and this is a special law of Christianity, and the highest possible test of piety, and probably the most difficult of all duties to be performed.

“The Law and the Prophets Were Until John”
(Matthew 11:13; Luke 16:16)
David Willis wrote: "The law and the prophets were until John; from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached. Mt 11:13 "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. I believe that passage. Do you, Robert?”

Yes, I believe what the Bible says, but I do not believe the twist that some put on various texts in their effort to make an argument to support a false teaching that they seem compelled to defend.

The argument is as follows: The Old Testament ended with John and therefore Jesus, who lived at the same time as John, taught something different. Thus, He could change Moses' teachings regarding who could marry.

This statement poses some obvious problems. The first problem is that no evidence exists that the Jews, who sought to entrap Jesus in His words so they could kill Him, accepted Jesus as a prophet and certainly not one that could contradict the Law.

Another problem with the theory set forth is that if John was the last prophet then Jesus was not a prophet because He was born after John. But the Bible says Jesus was a prophet: Deut 18:15; Acts 3:22, 7:37; Heb 1:1, 2).

When we read the text from various versions it becomes apparent that it does not support the idea that Jesus taught contrary to Moses.

Mat 11:13
(ASV) For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

(CEV) All the Books of the Prophets and the Law of Moses told what was going to happen up to the time of John.

(GNB) Until the time of John all the prophets and the Law of Moses spoke about the Kingdom;

Luke 16:16
(CEV) Until the time of John the Baptist, people had to obey the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets. But since God's kingdom has been preached, everyone is trying hard to get in.

(ISV) The law and the Prophets were prophesying until the time of John. Since then, the good news about the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is trying to enter it by force.

(KJV) The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Barnes:
Mt 11:13 All the prophets, etc. It is meant by this verse that John introduced a new dispensation; and that the old one, where the prophets and the Law of Moses were the guide, was closed when he preached that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. By the law is meant the five books of Moses; by the prophets, the remainder of the books of the Old Testament.

The key phrase in Barnes' comments is "introduced a new dispensation." This obviously does not mean that the New Law went into effect at John’s birth. Nor did it go into effect at some point in John's life. The Law of Moses ended upon the death of Christ, at which time the New Testament went into effect (Heb. 9:16, 17).

Links for further study:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1355-is-the-law-of-moses-torah-still-binding
http://www.ukapologetics.net/1lawandtheprophets.htm

The “Hedge”
(Just in case the “Jesus Contradicted Moses” argument fails)
John 6:48-66 -“Eat my flesh, and drink my blood”
Some, who are arguing that Jesus contradicted Moses on various issues, including divorce and remarriage, evidently are not confident with their argument because they argue that Jesus’ so-called “new” teaching (that supposedly was contrary to Moses) was not to go into effect until after the cross. If the first argument is valid then the second is superfluous. But on the MDR issue, it can be easily demonstrated that Jesus’ teachings were applicable to the people to whom he spoke at the time He spoke them. All one needs to do is look at the context and take note to of who the audience of Jesus was. Therefore, the argument that Jesus’ teachings were not intended to apply at the time He spoke them is obviously illogical.

Moses’ teachings were God’s teachings. Jesus’ teachings were God’s teachings. Jesus was God and therefore if Jesus was teaching contrary to Moses then God taught contrary to God. Thus, it is obviously imprudent for Christians to argue that Jesus actually contradicted Moses.

David Willis asked, “…Was the requirement that a person eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus in effect the moment He said that in John 6?”

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
“Was that true at the moment Jesus said that?”

Yes, it was true. To argue that anything Jesus said was not true at the point He said it is to contend that Jesus lied. Jesus always told the truth.

Barnes:
His body was offered on the cross, and was raised up from the dead and received into heaven. Besides, there is no evidence that he had any reference in this passage to the Lord’s Supper. That was not yet instituted, and in that there was no literal eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. The plain meaning of the passage is, that by his bloody death - his body and his blood offered in sacrifice for sin - he would procure pardon and life for man; that they who partook of that, or had an interest in that, should obtain eternal life. He uses the figure of eating and drinking because that was the subject of discourse; because the Jews prided themselves much on the fact that their fathers had eaten manna; and because, as he had said that he was the bread of life, it was natural and easy, especially in the language which he used, to carry out the figure, and say that bread must be eaten in order to be of any avail in supporting and saving men. To eat and to drink, among the Jews, was also expressive of sharing in or partaking of the privileges of friendship. The happiness of heaven and all spiritual blessings are often represented under this image, Mat_8:11; Mat_26:29; Luk_14:15, etc.

Conclusion:

Did Jesus contradict, disagree with, change, or break the Law of Moses?

This question is similar to that of the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection. The apostle Paul dealt with this false element in the church at Corinth:

(1Co 15:12-20) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Indeed, Christ is raised from the dead and He is our Savior. But this would not have been possible if He had not lived a sinless life. To live a sinless life involves obeying the laws to which one is subject, which Jesus did. Thus to argue that Jesus contradicted Moses’ Law, which would have been a sin, is tantamount to saying Jesus was a sinner; which, if true, makes our faith vain and “ye are yet in your sins.”