Galloway/Waters 1st Debate on Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
 Proposition: 
Jesus taught new law (contradictory to the Law of Moses) when He 
taught that one commits adultery if he puts away his wife and 
marries another, unless it was because of fornication.
Affirm:  Brian Galloway
Deny:  Robert Waters

In this first affirmation, we will look at the idea that if two 
separate laws exist, they must differ at points.  If they did not 
differ, they would be the same and thus would be one and the same 
law.  Those differences are going to be contrary to one another, 
or in other words, are going to contradict.  This holds true 
especially if one law is replacing the former.  Why would there 
be a need for the replacement if there were no differences or 
contradictions between the laws.  As will be shown later in this 
first affirmative, while Jesus lived and taught under the law of 
Moses, he was teaching his new law.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines contradict as, "to assert 
the opposite of, to deny the statement of a person.  To go 
against or speak in denial of; to oppose verbally."  
Contradictory is defined as "involving a contradiction; 
inconsistent; contrary.  Inclined to contradict or deny."  So, 
based on that definition, I must show that Christ's teaching 
concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage was opposed to or was 
inconsistent with the Law of Moses.

Robert Waters, my opponent, has stated in the recent past that if 
Jesus contradicted the Law of Moses, he sinned.  I believe that 
is not a valid conclusion, because the Bible teaches Jesus "did 
no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:" 1 Peter 2:22.  Yet 
Jesus initiated a new law.  If he began a new law, then it had to 
differ from the old law.  The Bible would be in contradiction 
with itself if that were sin.

Actually, this is a fairly easy topic to affirm.  In the Bible we 
have three different laws given by God to man.  The Patriarchal 
law was given orally from God to the heads of the families.  
Hebrews 1:1 refers to this law.  In addition, we see examples of 
this law from events such as Cain and Abel sacrificing to God, to 
God speaking through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.  How could Abel 
have offered a sacrifice through faith if no command by God had 
been given?  And likewise, how could Cain have failed to offer 
through faith unless God had told him, through Adam, how to 
sacrifice?

The Mosaical law is much easier to define, because we know when 
and how it was given, and have a written copy that Moses wrote by 
means of the Holy Spirit. Was the Law of Moses different from the 
Patriarchal law?  Of course.  Otherwise the law would never have 
been given. Did it contradict the Patriarchal law?  If it were 
different it had to contradict.  And it differed in how it was 
given, to whom it was given, how God was to be approached, and a 
variety of other ways.  It also differed in God's plan for 
marriage, divorce, and remarriage, as we will see in the third 
affirmation.  Different laws are such because they have 
differences, contradictions.  Was the entire law of Moses 
different from the entire Patriarchal law?  No.  But parts of it 
were.  And note also, parts of the law of Moses were given prior 
to that law being in force.  One example is the Passover, which 
was instituted over a year before the law was given to Moses at 
Mt. Sinai.

Christ came to do two things with reference to law.  First, he 
came to fulfill the Law of Moses.  And after keeping the law 
perfectly and fulfilling the prophecies concerning him, he died 
and took the Law of Moses out of authority, Colossians 2:14.  
Note the verse.  "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that 
was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the 
way, nailing it to his cross;".   Note a key word in the verse, 
the word contrary.  The law of Moses was contrary to the 
Christian, and to the law the Christian is under.  And Jesus 
"took it out of the way."  Now, a question.  What law was in 
force when Jesus "took it out of the way, nailing it to his 
cross;"?  Why, the law of Moses was in force.  If Jesus in 
teaching contrary to the law of Moses was sinning, then surely 
taking the law out of the way would also be sinning.

Jesus instituted a new law, the law he had been teaching during 
his ministry, both publicly and at times only to his disciples or 
apostles.  When Peter and the other apostles preached that new 
law on the day of Pentecost, then it became the authority for all 
men.  And a quick look at Christ's private conversation with his 
apostles the eve of his death shows the following.  Look at John 
14:26.   "But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the 
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and 
bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you."  Now, we 
know the Holy Spirit initially came upon the apostles on the day 
of Pentecost in Acts 2.  On that day the new law, the law of 
Christ, was brought into force as Peter and the rest of the 
apostles preached it.  As they preached then and for the next 
several decades, among what they preached was what Jesus taught 
during his ministry, living under the law of Moses.  This 
teaching was brought to their remembrance by the comforter, the 
Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit would not have had to bring to 
their remembrance the law of Moses, it was written down for 
them.  What Jesus was teaching was what he wanted the apostles to 
teach after he left.  He was teaching the new law.

Now, was this new law the same as the Law of Moses?  No.  In 
fact, the two laws did not even have the same purpose.  Did they 
teach different things?  Yes, definitely.  In places, does the 
Law of Christ contradict the Law of Moses?  Definitely.  If the 
two laws were the same, then there would have been no need for 
the Law of Christ to come into being.  So even before looking at 
specific contradictions and specific scriptures, just the idea 
that two laws existed, one replacing the other, shows us that 
some discrepancies and contradictions existed.  One example of 
this would be in the realm of salvation.  What did the law of 
Moses require must be done in order to be saved?  Now, what did 
Jesus require for salvation (John 3:5, John 3:16, Mark 16:16).  
One does not have to study the Bible long to see a huge 
contradiction here.

The Bible tells us that the Law of Moses, the first covenant, was 
a figure (Hebrews 9:9-10).  It was added because of 
transgressions until the seed should come, that seed being Christ 
(Galatians 3:16, 19).  It was disannulled "because of its 
weakness and unprofitableness" (Hebrews 7:18-19).  Let me hasten 
to add that the Law of Moses was perfect for what God intended 
for it to do, but it was imperfect to accomplish the redemption 
of man.  The Law of Moses was a tutor to bring man to the time of 
Christ (Galatians 3:24).  So from before creation, as God in his 
infinite wisdom already knew what would occur to bring redemption 
to men, he planned the law of Moses to be temporary, and for that 
law to end and be replaced by a new, second, and faultless 
covenant, (Isaiah 2:2-3, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:6-13).  

By the very nature of the two laws and their differences, we see 
contradictions. Under the Law of Moses, sacrifices were made and 
repeated continually, "year by year" (Hebrews 10:1-4).  But we 
have a sacrifice in Christ that was made once for all.  We don't 
make sacrifices continually.  That is a contradiction to the Law 
of Moses.  Under the Law of Moses, the priesthood came through 
Aaron, a Levitical priesthood.  But under the new law, all 
Christians are priests, and Christ, our high priest is not after 
the Levitical priesthood, but after the order of Melchizedek 
(Hebrews 7:11-12), and the change of priests necessitated a 
change of law.  One Levitical, the other by Melchizedek.  A 
contradiction.  

The interesting thing is that the Law of Moses set itself up to 
be temporary, to be fulfilled, and to end with the coming of 
Christ.  So for Christ to come and begin teaching his new law, he 
was doing exactly what the old law prophesied would happen.  So 
instead of this causing Christ to sin, it was instead his 
accomplishing all things by the Old Law.  Hebrew 9 speaks in 
great detail about this.  Notice two verses: "For where a 
testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the 
testator.  For a testament is of force after men are dead: 
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." 
(Hebrews 9:16-17).  If a testament becomes of force after men are 
dead, then the testament must exist prior to the death.  Christ's 
new testament, or new law came of force when he died.  If so, it 
existed prior to his death.

So we see in this first affirmation that Jesus did not sin.  Yet 
while on earth he did teach and establish his new covenant which 
came into force when he died.  And because there was needed a new 
covenant, it differed and was contrary to the old.

We will focus our attention in the second affirmation at some of 
the specific contradictions Christ made.

A few questions for Robert:

1.  Can two laws exist and be the same?
2.  If two laws exist, isn't it necessary that contradictions 
also exist between the two laws?
3.  When the Holy Spirit brought to the apostles' remembrance 
what Jesus taught, was he bringing to remembrance the law of 
Moses, or teaching that was to be contained in the new law?
4.  In light of the fact that the old law predicted (prophesied) 
the new law being established, then what would make Christ sin 
when he fulfilled the old law by establishing the new law, a law 
that in some points contradicted the old law?
5.  What would the LOM teach one must do to be saved?  Was that 
in contradiction to what Jesus taught?  Was it in contradiction 
to what was taught after Pentecost?
6.  Was the LOM in contradiction to "that which was from the 
beginning?"  What word indicates that contrast?