Galloway/Waters 1st Debate on Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
 Proposition: 
 Jesus' teachings in Matt 19:3-12 and 5:32 were in complete harmony 
with Moses' Law, which allowed for legal divorce.
Affirm:  Robert Waters
Deny:  Brian Galloway

In his last reply, Brian wrote: 
I am not sure if this is Water's second affirmative or not.  
Because of the length of his reply, and because this reply was a 
combination of three posts, I am going to simply list the number 
and my response. You will need to print out and read Water's 
reply to see what I am responding to.

RW:
To clear up any confusion, my last post was a response to Brian’s 
first response to my affirmative in which I affirmed that: 
"Jesus' teachings in Matt19:3-12 and 5:32 were in complete 
harmony with Moses' Law, which allowed for legal divorce." 

My first article, in which I was in the affirmative, was 
basically a list of questions.  In my reply, for the convenience 
of the reader, I quoted most of the questions and most of Brian’s 
response before making my reply. This is my final post on this 
particular discussion.  Approximately one half of Brian’s 
response dealt with the issue that is to be discussed in the next 
debate to begin immediately after this one.  Brian must have 
decided he was not fairing to well in denying the current 
proposition so he jumped to the next one.  While I have dealt 
with some of his questions in this exchange, most were, for sack 
of brevity and continuity, deferred to be answered in the next 
discussion.  

Brian began by saying:
Brian wrote: 
Before we get into that, let me make an important point. Water's 
whole case seems to be built on his definition of 'put away' and 
'divorce'.

RW:
No, Brian, you have made a false assumption that reveals your 
lack of confidence in your position in this discussion.  “Waters’ 
whole case”, as far as this proposition is concerned, is that 
what Jesus taught in Mat19:9 did not contradict the Law under 
which he lived and obey flawlessly.  The two propositions each 
stand on their on.  Brethren, Brian could prove me wrong in the 
next debate, but it would have no affect on the core issue of 
this one.   Since Brian, while in the affirmative, was unable to 
prove that Jesus changed the Law when he addressed the Pharisees’ 
questions (Mt19), he has come up with a new strategy.  His latest 
effort is to try to tie the propositions together and assert that 
they stand or fall together. Furthermore, Brian has tried to 
discredit me with ridicule.  He has asserted that I’m the only 
one that believes this.  Well, he knows better than that.  
Others, beside me are teaching the same thing on various lists, 
including Mars-List to which Brian has been subscribed.  There is 
also a link to an article on my web site on this other issue.  
Based upon what Brian wrote that pertained to the next 
proposition I have concluded that he has not done even as much 
research and study on this matter as he had done on the subject 
of the first discussion.  

In this final reply I have listed the questions and left Brian’s 
remarks so you can see to what it is exactly that I’m responding.  
There were some questions that I skipped in my reply.  I did so 
either because the point had been made, there was no further 
point to be made, or the point had been, or would be, discussed 
sufficiently under another question. 

I find several things in Brian’s latest response to be a bit 
strange:

1) That he chose to quote virtually nothing from me, knowing that 
most will simply not take the time to look to see what was 
actually asked or said;  2) That Brian chose to spent most of his 
space dealing with what is the subject of the next debate (I 
suppose he thinks he can fair better with that proposition. We 
shall see.);  3) That he completely ignored some of my arguments 
that are crucial to saving his doctrine;  4) That he became 
judgmental (See example #1 below); and  5) That his attitude 
changed from confident, cordial and brotherly, to a more 
disheartened, frosty, and somewhat un-brotherly chap.

Note some examples of my observation noted in #5 above:  
#1: “Out of his desperation to prove what he wants the Bible to 
say, he made it up.” #2 “I find it interesting that if one can't 
make the Bible teach what he wants, the next step is to change 
definitions.” #3 “Robert ends with thanking me for my attitude. I 
wish I could reply the same, but Robert has stooped during this 
entire debate of trying to insult me instead of dealing with the 
proposition at hand.”

Brian, the reader will decide if it was “insults” that changed 
your attitude or if your attitude change was because you were 
neither able to affirm your proposition nor successfully deny the 
one that I’m presently affirming.  Since Brian evidently is not 
willing to publicly admit the weaknesses in his doctrine, but to 
hold to it at all cost, he has become rather bitter and harsh in 
making charges that he cannot substantiate, and which should 
never have been made in the first place.  

Nevertheless, I shall conclude this debate with the same spirit 
with which I began it. 

1. Was divorce allowed Under the Law of Moses (Deut24:1-4)? 

Brian wrote: 
#1.  Robert here tries to use his theory to say that the 
Pharisees were not asking about divorce (even though they link 
the two (putting away and divorce) together)) in Matthew 19:7. 

RW:
– There is a “link”, but they are not the same, which is a matter 
to be fully discussed in the next debate immediately following 
this one.

I commented: “On the second point, Jesus contrasted what Moses 
“suffered” or “allowed” with what God had said from the 
beginning.  God did not change His mind regarding what was his 
ideal from the beginning.  It was because of “hardness of heart” 
that Moses did not enforce the Law (Deut24:1-4), which commanded 
the “bill of divorcement”.  The contrast was not that God made a 
law (at the beginning), changed it and then changed it again.  
Such an idea has God being indecisive and changeable (fickle).” 

To the above, Brian responded as follows: 
“He suggests God had not changed his mind on what he allowed. Odd 
Robert. When I read Genesis 2 and Deuteronomy 24, I see a big 
difference. Obviously Jesus saw a big difference. I'll agree that 
God had not changed his mind on what he wanted, but when he gave 
the Old Law through Moses (Deut. 24), he allowed or suffered some 
things that were not the ideal that he wanted. Jesus is going 
back to the ideal. One practicing what Jesus taught would not 
violate the Old Law.”

RW:
Clearly, Brian has admitted to idea that God made a law on 
divorce, changed it and then changed it again.  Are you prepared 
to accept that idea?  Or is it not more logical to accept that 
Brian does not have a proper understanding of God’s word, which 
of course he has already demonstrated by asserting that Jesus 
changed the Law that pertained to whether divorced persons could 
marry, and did so before his death. 

2. Under the LOM, was divorce ever commanded in some situations?  
#2. First, God did not make a mistake. Because of the hardness of 
the hearts of Israel he allowed divorce on a much wider level 
than what his principle was.  But remember, the Old Law was 
temporary, and God designed it that way.  So he knew this 
exception would not be eternal. 

RW:
Brian actually avoided this question this time but I will not let 
him forget his answer previously:  
2. Yes.  In places such as Exodus 21:7-11, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, 
24:1-4, divorce seems to be allowed for the man who no longer 
finds delight in his wife. 

RW:
Brian first response was “yes”.  What does the text say?  “..That 
he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her 
hand…” (ASV).  Sure SOUNDS like a command. Also, the Pharisees 
understood the passage to be a command, rather than something 
“suffered”.  Thus, what was “suffered”? It was the “putting 
away”, though it was never authorized and God said he “hateth 
putting away”. 

Brian wrote: 
Robert's second point goes back to his fantasy of there being a 
difference between putting away and divorce which the Bible does 
not even indicate. Only Robert believes that. >

RW:
Brian, you know better than that.  You have been subscribed to 
Mars-list where at least one other person affirmed the position I 
hold, which you say only I believe. Also, there was one who 
wanted to debate me on this very list on this very proposition, 
until he realized he had misunderstood the proposition and 
actually agreed with me.  Were you not on this list then, or are 
you trying to discredit me with your “fantasy”, unless it is out 
right attempt at deception?  As to there being a difference…it 
should be obvious.  The English words come from different Greek 
words and they do not mean the same thing.  However, I do 
understand that the terms have for so long been used 
interchangeable that it is difficulty for many to accept that 
they are different and that this difference may be the key to 
properly understanding Jesus’ teachings on MDR.

Brian wrote: 
Robert suggests that Jesus was only referring to unlawful 
marriages in Matthew 19. Robert says, "The exception Jesus gave, 
'except it be for fornication' was simply an unlawful marriage, 
just as in the example Brian has given."  Let's see Robert.  What 
Jesus says in verse 9 of Matthew 19, Jesus has just said, "What 
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."  
Does not sound unlawful to me unless you are accusing God of 
doing something unlawful?  And if "It required divorce before 
marrying another", then why is the resulting marriage adultery?  
What you are saying does not fit what is going on in Matthew 19. 

RW:
Brian previously brought up the case in Ezra 9 and 10.  He said,  

“…Then divorce was the only way to make things right with God.” 
Funny, the passage says nothing about divorce.  It said “put 
away”, which is what God hates, unless the marriage was to 
someone to whom it was not lawful to marry.  Some English 
translators (versions) do use the word “divorce”, which is not 
surprising because of the common teaching for so many years that 
“put away” and “divorce” are the same thing.

3. Were the women (during O.T. times) that had been given a "bill 
of divorce" ever forbidden to remarry? 

Brian wrote: 
#3. Robert did not respond to this answer 
Brian’s answer previously:  
3. Yes.  We know they could not remarry their former husband 
(Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  Beyond that they seemed to be allowed to 
marry and the marriage was not considered adultery (which would 
have been punished by death). 

RW:
Brian admits that he believes they were not forbidden to marry 
under the Law, but he would have us to believe that the Son of 
God, who obeyed the Law perfectly, changed that fact.  So, what 
are we to believe, that those who heard Him did not have to obey 
right then?  Or was not until Christ’s death that all the people 
who had been divorced suddenly became adulterers?  There is a big 
problem here.  According to Brian’s doctrine and reasoning (?), 
people who had been divorced, but had married another, would have 
had to break up their marriages and live celibate.  That is 
indeed strange, because the only two examples in the N.T. where 
there was any indication that something was wrong with a 
marriage, was the case of Herod and Herodias, and the man who had 
his father’s wife (1Cor5), both of which involved illegal or 
incestuous relationships, which was nothing but “fornication” and 
needed to be dissolved because the marriages were “not lawful” 
(Mat14:4).

4. In the O.T., is there any implication that divorced women may 
be another man's wife? 

Brian wrote: 
#4. I think Robert missed my point here.  An implication is 
something other than a direct statement.  Deuteronomy 24 is not 
an implication, it is a direct statement allowing a woman 
divorced to remarry.  But this is that which was suffered because 
of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19:8). 

Robert still thinks God changed his mind.  The fact that God 
allowed something temporarily does not mean he changed his mind.  
He also allowed polygamy, but does not today. The reason, it was 
not his original intent. 

RW:
No, Robert does not think God changed his mind.  And, Brian, 
where is a passage of scripture that shows that God authorized or 
approved of polygamy?  There is no such passage.  Moses 
“suffered” polygamy, just like he did “putting away”, but such 
was not God’s ideal “from the beginning” and neither was ever 
authorized.

Brian wrote: 
Sometimes as man was being readied for the Messiah (the purpose 
of the Old Law), God allowed some things that he would not later 
allow.  This is probably what Paul refers to in Acts 17:30. >

RW:
Brian says God “allowed” things.  What do you think “allowed” 
(suffered)  means?  Do you think it means “authorized”.  The 
answer is in the passage you gave. Indeed God “winked” at the sin 
of polygamy and “putting away”, but such does not mean he 
authorized either.  [Strong’s: “from 5228 and 1492; to overlook, 
i.e. not punish:--wink at.”]

In my response I previously wrote: “I maintain that Brian 
misunderstands Jesus’ teachings and that there is consistency in 
God’s word regarding the allowing of divorced persons to marry.  
The apostle Paul wrote: (1Co 7:8) “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.”  Only those who are determined to defend 
tradition argue that “unmarried” does not include one who is 
divorced and no longer married.”

Well, Brian must be determined to “defend tradition” because he 
certainly argued that “unmarried” does not include one who is 
divorced and no longer married because he responded as follows:

“Then to my great wonder, Robert goes to 1 Cor. 7 to try to prove 
his point. Wrong place to go.  He quotes 1 Cor. 7:8-9, where Paul 
says, "But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for 
them if they abide even as I, but if they cannot contain, let 
them marry."  Robert concludes this means divorced people can 
remarry. Robert, where did divorced people come into the picture. 
No, Paul is not talking about them.  He is talking about the 
unmarried (that rules out divorced), and with widows.  Divorce is 
not there.  Why should they contemplate not marrying?  Because of 
the present distress (7:26).”

RW:
Let us ignore what most N.T. commentaries say and take a closer 
look at the word translated “unmarried”.   Strong’s: [Grk. 22] 
agamos (ag'-am-os) from 1 (as a negative particle) and 1062; 
unmarried:--unmarried. 

Brian, the “negative particle” is communicated in English by the 
word “not”.  Not married.

“not joined to another person by marriage” (Encarta Dictionary).   
Brethren, if UN can refer to one that had been married but whose 
spouse died, it can just as well apply to one who had been 
married but is divorced.  To deny it is to show ones 
determination to make the passage fit the assumption that Jesus 
forbad divorced persons to have a marriage. 

What seems to be Brian’s reasoning for rejecting the obvious is 
that, as he said, 
“Jesus' point in Matthew 19:9 is that the person divorced for 
reasons other than fornication is still married according to the 
one who joins together to begin with.  That is why an additional 
marriage is adultery.”

RW:
The last statement is true, but not the first.  Divorced persons 
are not still married “in God’s eyes” (though Brian did not use 
the terminology).  To contend that you could prove what Brian has 
asserted is tantamount to asserting that one could pick himself 
up with his own boot straps.  What he said is merely an argument 
that has been made to support the idea that Jesus changed the Law 
and taught that a divorced person cannot marry.  The only thing 
that supports this argument is the assumption that Jesus changed 
the Law and forbad the divorced to have a marriage.  Are we to 
believe that God allowed divorce, even commanded it in some cases 
(in O.T.), and allowed those divorced to marry another, but then 
later decided that when one is divorced He is not going to 
recognize the divorce, i.e., that they are still married? 
Brethren, the word of God, properly understood, does not portray 
our God in the manner we must see Him if Brian’s doctrine is 
true.

Previously I wrote: “Moses did not forbid marriage for divorced 
people, Jesus did not forbid marriage for divorced people and the 
apostle Paul said such a doctrine was “doctrines of devils” 
(1Tim4:1-3).  Thus, God has been consistent.  Brian is like the 
Pharisees who misunderstood the scriptures and made the wrong 
application to various passages.”

I did not catch where Brian responded to the above statement.

Brian wrote: 
Robert asks, "Now how does one commit adultery against a spouse 
to whom they are not married?"  Now if he is willing to accept 
the conclusion, he won't have a problem with this anymore.  While 
one may be married before man's eyes, he may not be married in 
God's eyes.  And that is the situation here in Matthew 19:9. A 
man gets a legal divorce for reasons other than fornication.  The 
state sees them as not being married.  But God, who is the one 
who joins together to begin with, still sees them as being 
married.  In the state's eyes the person remarries.  In God's 
eyes they are still married to the original spouse, thus the 
second marriage is just an adulterous state.  And if you want an 
example of this look at Mark 6:17-18, "For Herod himself had sent 
forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the 
sake of Herodias, HIS BROTHER PHILIP'S WIFE; for he had married 
her.  For John said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have 
THY BROTHER'S WIFE."  John was thinking the way we 'traditional' 
thinkers think.  Herodias was obviously divorced from Philip 
according to the state, but not according to God. Herod had 
married Herodias according to the state, but God still saw her as 
Philip's wife, which meant she and Herod were living in adultery. 
Exactly what Jesus teaches in Matthew 19.

RW:
What is evident in the above is how “traditional’ thinkers” 
ignore the circumstances and make assumptions that support their 
doctrine.  John’s statement was true because of the teachings of 
the Law, found in  Lev20:21 & Deut25:7. Herod had married one who 
had been his brother’s wife and who was also his niece.  The 
conclusion of “traditional thinkers” is that John accused Herod 
of adultery, but the language is not there and there is no 
indication here, or in any example, that one who has been 
divorced must remain celibate.  

5. Were the practices of the Pharisees (relating to Divorce and 
Remarriage), that Jesus called adultery, wrong before Jesus said 
it? 

Brian wrote: 
#5. In Robert's response, he wants to both accept that Jesus 
taught something differently from the Old Law, intending to go 
into effect, but then deny that that happened. I found several 
problems with the question, Robert, because with the Pharisees 
sometimes one never knows if they are thinking based on their 
traditions, or based on the Old Law. >

RW:
What a dodge!  Brian, the question is simple, yet your response 
is nonsensical.  The practices of the Pharisees were what Jesus 
said they were:  They were putting away their wives and marrying 
another.  He said it was adultery. Will you answer the question?  
You dodged the question because it shows how ridiculous your 
position is.  I made a statement that showed the real problem 
with the question, but the problem was for Brian and his 
doctrine:

“Thus, to accept the proposition he previously affirmed we would 
have to accept that Jesus taught some “truth” that was not true 
when he said it.  If it was true when he said it then it would at 
that moment be applicable to those who heard.  The prudent 
position here is that what Jesus said was true, but that Brian’s 
idea of what Jesus said is error.”

To the above Brian asserted:  
Now, as to our proposition, it concerns Jesus' teachings in 
Matthew 19 and Matthew 5.  When his teachings went into effect 
has nothing to do with the proposition, so sorry Robert, your 
criticism does not hold true.  Could Jesus teach something that 
did not go into effect until later?  Yes.  Could Jesus with the 
authority of God have changed things at that point back to God's 
original intent?  Yes.  So whichever you want to go with is fine 
with me.  But it is clear that his teaching was not in harmony 
with what the Old Law taught in Deuteronomy 24.  That is all that 
matters with the proposition. 

RW:
To believe that Jesus changed the Law that allowed divorced 
persons to marry, one has to accept that he taught something that 
was not expected to be obeyed at the time he said it.  Yet there 
was no indication that what Jesus said applied to future, when 
the new law would go into effect.  Clearly, it applied to those 
to whom he spoke.  Those to whom he spoke were guilty of the sin 
he addressed and needed to repent THEN, not months or years 
later.

6. Does Jesus state that He is not going to change the Law until 
ALL be fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-19)? 

Brian wrote: 
#6. See the above paragraph for the answer to Robert's fallacy 
upon when the law started. 

RW:
Fallacy?  It is a fact that the Law ended at Christ’s death and 
that his will could not be in effect before that time (Heb9:17).  
What in the world are you talking about?  Brian first dodged this 
question by saying, “This depends on what you mean by change.”  
What does Brian mean by “change”?  Jesus made a statement that 
Brian contends changed the Law, but the Jews did not see it as a 
change in the Law when He said it.  I guess we are supposed to 
believe that the Jews realized that the Law would not change 
until Jesus’ death.  I suppose that is why they were in such a 
hurry to kill him – so they that most of them would suddenly be 
in need of breaking up their happy marriages and then live 
celibate. 

Brian continued:  
Actually, my telemarketing example proves exactly what you are 
saying cannot happen.  Law can be taught before it goes into 
effect.  And it can be different from existing law. 

RW:
Brian, I showed the fallacy of your “telemarketing” example.  You 
wrote:  
On October 1, a new law goes into effect in the USA. Then it will 
be illegal for telemarketers to call those who have put their 
number on a 'no call' list.  Currently it is legal for them to 
call those individuals.  Yet that new law is being 'taught' and 
advertised, and people are putting their name on the list in 
anticipation of that law.  Jesus was teaching his new law in 
anticipation of its beginning. 

I replied:  “The problem with Brian’s example is that there is no 
person of authority who is going around telling the telemarketers 
that they are sinning by making the calls they have been making.  
Brian’s interpretation of Jesus’ teachings is that He made new 
law when he said what is recorded in Matt19:9.”

Did you not get the point, Brian?  Yes, it is “legal to call 
those individuals” because there is no Law to the contrary. They 
have a right to do it.  There is no one of authority telling them 
it is against the law. But you have Jesus telling the Jews they 
are breaking the Law, therefore, your example proves nothing.  
That you made an effort is acknowledged. 

Brian wrote: 
No one doubts that Jesus followed the law perfectly, and no one 
doubts that you contend that "what Jesus taught was in complete 
harmony with what the law under which he lived."  But anyone who 
reads Matthew 19:1-12, desiring to know and follow God's will, 
will know what you contend is false and wrong. >

RW:
Brian’s problem is evidently that he thinks Matt19:1-12 is the 
place to begin studying the MDR issue, and that anything that 
contradicts the preconceived conclusion as to what the passage 
says, has to be error.  Persons who desire to know and follow 
God’s will look to all the scriptures and follows rules of 
hermeneutics in their study. 

7. When was "all" fulfilled? 
Brian wrote: 
#7. Robert, you are now arguing a different subject than our 
proposition.  Did Jesus expect his teaching to be followed 
immediately, or was he teaching in anticipation of the Old Law 
being fulfilled and the New Law coming into effect?  That is not 
the question we are debating.  It would be a interesting question 
to discuss, and I'm not sure it matters which part of it is true.  
But whichever is true does not change that Jesus was teaching 
differently from Deut. 24. 

RW:
It is interesting that Brian has charged that I’m getting off the 
subject and proposition, because in his first reply to this 
question he simply said, “At Christ's death, see #6 for complete 
answer.” I find it amazing how Brian shrugs off the idea of it 
being unreasonable to conclude that Jesus taught new law on MDR 
but did not expect it to be obeyed till years later.  He says he 
is not sure it matters.  Well, I was brought up to believe that 
when God speaks man must obey right then.  God (to include Jesus) 
has never made a statement that was not true the very moment He 
said it.  Thus, Brian’s contention that Jesus words were 
meaningless until His death, must be seen for what it is - a 
quibble to avoid the obvious truth.  Jesus did not teach or say 
anything contradictory to the Law when he addressed the 
Pharisees, as recorded in Matt19. 

10. When does a "will" (which we know is the "law of Christ") 
take effect? 

My reply to Brian was as follows: “The WILL was in the mind of 
the H.S. but was written by the apostles after Jesus death.  
After stating, “I will build my church”, Jesus said to His 
apostles: (Mt 16:19) “And I will give unto thee the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall 
be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
shall be loosed in heaven.”  Thus, it is clear that the apostles 
were the ones to do any teaching that was new law and “binding” 
on the hearers.”

Below was Brian’s only response:  
#10. Actually, the will was in the mind of God, taught by Christ, 
and then brought to the apostles remembrance and further teaching 
after his death by the Holy Spirit.  See Matthew 28:18-20.  So 
you are still wrong on this point. 

RW:
I don’t doubt that God knew what would be written.  But if I was 
wrong in what I said above, and what Brian says is true, the N.T. 
is not the will of God.  Do we have to go back and know 
everything Jesus said and taught.  No. The O.T. was abolished at 
Jesus’ death and then the apostles, by inspiration, wrote God’s 
will, which is the N.T.  It is strange that Brian contends that 
Jesus taught the Will of God, but that it was not God’s Will 
until Christ died, or until it was later written.  Something is 
inconsistent in his thinking here.

11. Can you have two laws in effect at the same time? 
Brian wrote: 
#11.  I see no problem with the assertion.  See number 7. 

RW:
Brian’s original response was as follows: 
“No, not if they are for the same people and one is to replace 
the other one.”   

He has evaded the problem by accepting (or at least must to 
keeping from having to give up his proposition) the idea that 
Jesus taught new law but it was not authoritative at the time, 
and did not apply THEN to the ones to whom it was given.  They 
were not in sin, as Jesus said, and didn’t need to repent.  
Brethren, Brian’s argument is clearly foolishness (to say the 
least) because it can only be true if Jesus lied to the 
Pharisees.”

12. Did Jesus teach something that required action that was 
contrary to their law that was then in effect? 

Brian wrote: 
#12. Robert, whether what Jesus taught in Matthew 19 went into 
effect immediately, or a few month later when he died, would have 
produced the same situation in those people.  If they were in 
marriages that were unlawful to God, immediately or soon 
afterwards, they needed to start making changes.  I am glad my 
answer sounded pretty good.  It sounded good because it is based 
on the Bible, not on someone's whimsical imagination.

RW:
Perhaps I gave you too much credit.  I did not mean is sounded 
believable.  I pointed out that you evaded the question and that 
you did not deal with the real problem the question posed.   I 
wrote: “Brian cleverly evaded the question by dealing with a 
“non-action” matter, applicable to those who would volunteer to 
comply.  The real problem, which I cannot believe Brian has not 
seen, is the question regarding the marriages that, if Brian is 
correct, suddenly became “unscriptural”, i.e., adulterous.  You 
see, if Brian’s doctrine is true then marriages that were 
scriptural became unscriptural at the point that Jesus spoke the 
words that Brian contends amounted to a change of the Law.  Of 
course, he also has been forced to admit that the Law was not 
changed until the death of Christ and that two laws cannot be in 
effect at the same time. 

This time Brian made a better effort.  He replied, 
“If they were in marriages that were unlawful to God, immediately 
or soon afterwards, they needed to start making changes.”  


But that answer does not cut it either because it denies that 
what Jesus said of the Jew’s sinful condition was true.  Brian’s 
position is hinging on the assumption that what Jesus spoke was 
not true when it was uttered.  Therefore, his position is 
unbelievable and my proposition is affirmed.

13. If the answer to the above is yes, please endeavor to 
convince us why such is believable; since Jesus, in the same 
discourse, said He was not going to change the law until all is 
fulfilled? 

Brian wrote: 
#13. I'm not sure of the relevance of #13 to our proposition, and 
I'm not totally sure what Robert means. He can elaborate further. 

RW:
Brian did not indicate a problem with seeing “relevance” when he 
first responded to this question.  He wrote: “The answer to 12 is 
no, not yes.  Besides which Jesus did not say change, he said 
destroy.”

Well, the relevance here is that Brian is now nailed down.  It is 
clearly seen that he believes that Jesus did not teach the Jews 
that their marriages, where one had been divorced, was contrary 
to God’s will – requiring them to break up their marriages.  Of 
course, such would have been against the Law, which taught the 
Jews to be faithful to their wives (Mal2:14;Pr5:18). So, Brian, 
is your answer to # 12 still “no”? 

Then you said, 
“Besides which Jesus did not say change, he said destroy.”

Now is that a quibble or what?  The point was that “not one jot 
or tittle will pass from the Law until all be fulfilled”.  What a 
problem this is for your doctrine which is that God’s teaching, 
that divorced persons had a right to marry, was changed before 
“all was fulfilled”!  

14. Under the O.T. would it have been transgression (sin) for a 
man to change the Law regarding who could marry? 

Brian, I misunderstood you on this one.  Nevertheless, you have 
effectively dodged this question for the moment by asserting that 
what Jesus taught did not change the Law when he said it, but 
that it may have happened later.  Of course, that was apparently 
not Brian’s position at the beginning of this debate, but was an 
after thought when he saw the problems with his position. I have 
previously pointed out the problems with the idea that what Jesus 
said did not change the Law at the time he said it.


16. Were the Jews taught that there would be a savior and that 
the "word of the Lord would go forth from Jerusalem"? Were John 
and Jesus authorized by the O.T. to teach the gospel? Could Jesus 
carry out His mission without sinning? Did He transgress 
(disobey) any Law? 

Brian wrote: 
#16. Robert, your definitions of transgression all involve 
violating the law. Jesus did not violate the law, he fulfilled it 
by teaching the New Law, just as it said he would. Teaching is 
not violating.  Contradicting is not violating.  Don't change the 
definition of transgress as you have tried to do with putting 
away. 

RW:
In O.T. times, one could not teach something that was exactly 
opposite from a major law, such as the right of a divorced person 
to marry, without such violating the law that was being 
challenged and contradicted.  That the Jews sought to entrap 
Jesus in his teaching is a fact that cannot be denied.  As 
pointed out previously, there was no practical reason for Jesus 
to have challenged and contradicted the Law on MDR, knowing the 
apostles would later answer, in writing, any questions that any 
might have regarding who had a right to marry, and that these 
writings would settle the matter for all time.  (Except for those 
who would first reach the wrong conclusion, that was not based on 
these writings, and not have the ability to see it or guts to 
admit it.) 

Brian wrote: 
Robert then goes into a diatribe about Jesus could not have been 
teaching contrary to what the Old Law said because the Pharisees 
did not charge him.  Robert, go read Matthew 22 and then come 
back to this.  I think you should see your fallacy. 

RW:
I’m glad you said what you did above, because it shows that you 
have not done your homework. Undoubtedly you are referring to 
verse 42, where you evidently think He claimed he was Christ and 
the Pharisees could not answer.  Barnes would not have seen my 
“fallacy”, because he did not see the passage as you do. Note 
what he said:

“Verse 42. What think ye Of Christ? What are your views 
respecting THE MESSIAH, or the Christ, especially respecting his 
genealogy? He did not ask them their views respecting him in 
general, but only respecting his ancestry. The article should 
have been retained in the translation--the Christ, or the 
Messiah. He did not ask them their opinion respecting himself, 
his person, and work, as would seem in our translation; but their 
views respecting the Messiah whom they expected.” 

Of course, Barnes will have no influence on Brian because he 
things Barnes was “shallow”.  Go figure.

Brethren, the Jews were disparate to find something with which to 
charge Jesus.  Brian says Jesus told them something that was 
contradictory to the Law (on a major matter), but they let it 
pass and his reasoning is that Jesus “silenced them” on other 
matters.  This is no reasoning at all, it is nonsense.  The 
simplest of the Pharisees could have justly charged any man that 
challenged the written Law and who would flatly contradict what 
it allowed regarding who could marry, but none did.  Why? Because 
Jesus did not make the contradiction that Brian so boldly and 
foolishly charges.

I concluded with the following remarks, which Brian ignored: “The 
trial of Jesus was based upon trumped-up charges. Every aspect of 
the trial was unlawful, from beginning to end.  At the trial, 
they did not charge that Jesus transgressed by “changing the 
Law”.  Why?  Brian’s response is that Jesus shut them up with his 
miracles and his sound reasoning (see below).  Such was not the 
case at the trial, where Jesus “Opened not his mouth” (Isa53:7); 
yet they made no charge that Jesus taught something that suddenly 
made adulterers out of people innocent of marital sin (whose 
spouse had divorced them) and took away their right of marriage.  
If Brian’s idea of what Jesus taught is correct the above is 
exactly what they would have thought and they would have not been 
silent regarding such unjust requirements.”

Brian tried to evade the idea that Jesus “transgressed” if he 
contradicted the Law.  He asserted that I defined it incorrectly.  
But I did not define it, Strong and Encarta Dictionary did.   If 
it was against the Law to teach against a major doctrine, in 
flatly contradicting it, and it obviously was, then it would be a 
sin for a man to do so.  And of course, Jesus was considered to 
be a man by the Pharisees.

17. Did the Pharisees consider Jesus to be anything other than a 
man?

Brian’s first answer was “yes”.   I replied as follows:  “The 
answer is ‘no’.  Many believed, but not those who followed Him 
around looking for opportunity to destroy Him.  They considered 
Him to be a man.  Thus, the thought that the reason the Pharisees 
made no charge against Jesus regarding his “changing the Law” 
because they accepted that He had the authority to so do, is 
baseless.”

Then in his second reply he says, “The answer is not no”.  Which 
is that it is “yes”.  Thus, he apparently understands that they 
did not accept his teaching (which Brian says contradicted the 
Law) because they accepted His authority. 

Brian quibbles:   
#17.  You did not ask if they accepted him as the son of God, you 
asked if they considered him more than a man.  Don't expect me to 
answer a different question than you asked.

If there is any doubt as to whether the Jews (the leaders who 
were his enemies) refused his authority, the following passages 
should settle it: (Joh 10:33) “The Jews answered him, saying, For 
a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because 
that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” 

In view of this passage there is no explanation for why the Jews 
would not have charged Jesus with sin if He has changing the Law 
on MDR, except one: He did not do it.

18. Did the Pharisees seek diligently to entrap Jesus in his 
words and to charge him with teaching against the Law of Moses? 

Brian said, 
”Your theory that because they did not respond or charge him he 
must have been teaching the same as the Pharisees (and thus the 
same as the Old Law which is a jump in and of itself) is faulty 
reasoning.  Other times they disagreed with him but did not 
charge him.”

RW:
What I’m saying, which is highly probable, if not certain, is 
that since it was the Jew’s intent (fueled by their hatred) to 
destroy Jesus, they would not pass up a perfect opportunity to 
accomplish their goal.  They often made charges that were totally 
false.  Their charges were wrong because of their 
misunderstanding or deliberate misuse of the Law.  There was no 
misunderstanding regarding the matter of a divorced person being 
allowed to marry. Yet, you would have us believe that Jesus 
changed the Law on this matter when he said what is recorded in 
Mat19, and that the Jews accepted it and made no charge that He 
was changing the Law.  Not only that, you expect the reader to 
accept as the reason for their failure to take advantage of THIS 
opportunity, that they accepted his authority.  But in John 
10:33, we find words that say to the contrary – words which I 
prefer to believe over the words of an ordinary man teaching a 
human doctrine that started with Satan (see 1Tim4:1-3).

19. Did the Pharisees charge Jesus with breaking the Law on any 
occasion and if so were they correct in doing so and charging Him 
with sin? 

To the above, Brian replied,  
“Did you not say, please answer with a yes or a no. You are 
accusing me of doing what you asked?!  No other answer was needed 
for this. You asked the question.  Was there a reason for the 
question we have not discussed yet?”

RW:
I must apologize for my failing to realize that there were two 
questions in #19 and that your answer, “Yes, no” meant “yes” to 
the first and “no” to the second.  You actually do usually deal 
forthrightly with questions – something that is rather uncommon 
on some lists I’m on. But your saving of words, like “yes to the 
first part”, and “no to the second part” threw me. Sorry about 
that.  Now to my point… By your own admission the Pharisees 
charged Jesus with breaking the Law on OTHER occasions.  Why did 
they not do so on the occasion where, according to you, Jesus 
taught contrary to the Law and what they supposedly understood 
was that persons who had been divorced could not marry and that 
persons who had already been divorced and married were guilty of 
adultery?  You seem to be saying that even though they understood 
that Jesus was saying a “divorce” is not valid unless it was for 
fornication, if one marries after the divorce, and he is still 
married to the previous spouse, that they accepted it all and 
went on their merry way.  You say they were “silenced” by Jesus’ 
teaching regarding what was true from the beginning.  How is it 
that what Jesus said would have silenced them?  They believed 
that Jesus was an imposter and blasphemer and He flatly 
contradicted their Law, yet we are to believe they accept Him on 
this and made no charge that Jesus was teaching contrary to the 
Law.

20. Which is most reasonable? 
a) That Jesus contradicted (broke, transgressed, violated)  the 
Law under which he lived; or 
b) The Pharisees merely THOUGHT, or slanderously charged, that 
Jesus had contradicted the Law, when he actually did not? 

Brian responds:  
You simply did not give all the choices that needed given. Both 
of your answers were wrong. But you also contradict yourself.  
You have been trying to prove that the Pharisees did not charge 
Jesus in Matt. 19, because Jesus agreed with the Old Testament 
which also they agreed with. But now you are saying that Jesus 
disagreed with what the Pharisees thought, but not that he 
actually contracted the Law.  Well, which is it, Robert.  Did he 
agree with the Pharisees or not? At least stick to the same 
argument. 

RW:
First, Brian says both my answer were wrong.  I had two questions 
here, but ONE answer.  The answer I gave was B.  Brian said I’m 
wrong and said I contradicted myself.   Brian, you assumed I was 
talking about Mat19.  I was not.  At any rate, it is interesting 
that you disagree with 20b.  I actually thought you were seeing 
the truth on that matter.  Perhaps you are the one that has 
contradicted yourself.

1. Did the Pharisees make any sort of charge against Jesus that 
his teaching to them regarding "MDR" was contrary to the Law?  If 
so please provide the passage. 

Brian wrote: 
#21. Robert does not believe that the Pharisees were unsatisfied 
with Jesus' answer. 

RW:
No, I do think they were “unsatisfied” and the reason they were 
not satisfied was because Jesus did not fall for their trap and 
say what they tried to get him to say.  They were hoping to get 
him to say something that would cause Him trouble.  Brian would 
have us believe that Jesus changed what was in Moses’ Law 
regarding marriage but that the Pharisees accepted it and 
remained silent after asking a few questions. 

Brian wrote: 
Pharisees ask, is it lawful to put away wife for any cause (3) 
Jesus answers, "Have you not read?" and takes them back to 
Deuteronomy 24:1-4?  NO, but that's what Robert wants us to 
think. Instead, Jesus answers "Have you not read?" and takes them 
back to Genesis 2 and God's principles that one man marry one 
woman for life (4-6).  So the answer to their question in verse 3 
is no.  It is not lawful. 

RW:
Indeed, Jesus answered the Pharisee’s question by going back to 
the beginning.  But let us look at the nature of their question.  
They were asking about the “reason” for putting away a spouse.  
Jesus knew their practices of treachery and responded by pointing 
to God’s intent for a marriage to be for life. Brian, Jesus did 
not take them back to Deut24 because that was the passage they 
would use to try to justify their practice.  Jesus knew they 
would bring it up and he would deal with their misunderstandings 
of it then.  The teachings in Deut24 did not justify the sinful 
action of men putting away their wives for “any reason”.  
However, it DID authorize the divorce, making it legal in ever 
sense (even if the man sinned in so doing), and freed the woman 
from the unfaithful husband, which was the purpose of it in the 
first place.  “Hardness of heart” indicates that there was some 
wrong doing.

Brian wrote: 
Then the Pharisees respond, "Why did Moses command to give a bill 
of divorcement and to put her away?" (7) In other words, Jesus, 
that's not what Moses taught. A disagreement!  

RW:
Indeed, there was a temporary disagreement as to whether Jesus 
had contradicted Moses’ command to issue the bill of divorce.  
But when Jesus stated, “Moses because of the hardness of your 
hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the 
beginning it was not so.”, they evidently realized that Jesus had 
“nailed” them because of their practices of “putting away” 
(apoluo) their faithful wives.  And then he silenced them with 
his teaching (verse 9) that in the cases where they were merely 
“putting away” their wives, which is to say, not legally, they 
were still married and were committing adultery by marrying 
another.  This was not a disagreement because Jesus changed the 
Law, as Brian has asserted.  It was a case where the Jews saw 
their sin and decided it was time to shut up.  Then it was the 
disciples that asked a question, which has been errantly 
interpreted to mean they thought Jesus was teaching celibacy if 
one had divorced.  Not so.  They understood the “exception 
clause” as Jesus meant it.  If one is going to marry a woman to 
whom he has no right to marry, such as a brother or sister, 
father’s wife etc., which would be “fornication”, it would be 
better to not marry THAT person.  The disciples did not think 
Jesus had said something that required the conclusion that 
celibacy was being taught or that it would be better. Such would 
be contrary to God’s statement, “it is not good that man should 
be alone.”  

Brian wrote: 
Then Jesus answered, because of your hardness of heart.  BUT from 
the beginning (back to Genesis 2) it hath not been so. (8)  
Genesis 2 contradicts Deuter 24, and Jesus goes back to Genesis 2. 

Brian, is the reader to believe what you have apparently said 
above? You sure have no problem with making charges that even the 
Pharisees would not dare make.  You not only charge that Jesus 
contradicted the Law you also charge that the Law contradicts the 
Law. Do you not realize what you are now doing because of your 
efforts to defend your error?

Brian wrote: 
Then verse 9 is just an application of that principle in Genesis 2. 

RW:
No, verse 9 is not an application of the principle in Gen.  It 
was an application to their evil practices.

Brian wrote: 
Then Robert wants to go back to his "Put Away" theory which is 
shown to be false at the beginning of this response. 

RW:
Brian, you have not shown anything I have taught to be false.  I 
chose to pass on responding to your lengthy effort to show my 
teachings to be error on this matter because it is the subject of 
the next debate.  In that debate I will respond to each of your 
objections. 

23. Why would Jesus consider it prudent to change the Law on 
Divorce and Remarriage while the Law of Moses was still in effect 
(which would have been viewed as transgression) since such, if 
God intended for it to be changed, could lawfully and properly be 
addressed by his apostles when teaching New Testament doctrine to 
New Testament subjects? 

Brian wrote: 
#23. Did I say just anyone could change the law?  Don't slander 
my speech. As I wrote in my affirmatives, Jesus was the seed of 
promise, prophesied in the Old Law that he would come and bring 
the New Law.  Read Romans 1-3.  Paul sets up who Jesus is in his 
introduction, points out the sinfulness in 1:18-3:20, and then 
points out that the solution is Christ, of whom the law witnessed 
3:21.  Jesus was the word and he had the right to teach his new 
law which would replace the old law, just as the old law pointed 
toward. 

RW:
Brian, I did not say you said anyone could change the Law.  
However, you say Jesus did, and that the Pharisees did not accept 
his authority has been established.  We are in agreement that 
Jesus had authority to change the Law, and that He did.  The 
problem I have posed for you, and which you cannot answer is, how 
can you assert that Jesus changed a major law while being forced 
to admit that the Jews had no problem with Jesus on that matter?

Brian wrote: 
Again, Robert accuses me of avoiding the issue, which I have not 
when I said it was not unlawful to remain married instead of 
divorcing.  He states he is talking about those who are divorced 
(I assume for reasons other than fornication) and then remarried.  
Robert, How do I know that is what you were thinking? You didn't 
ask that question!  

But, taking your scenario, if you have a person divorced for 
reasons other than fornication (for any cause), and remarries, 
and he listens to Jesus and decides he has to leave his spouse, 
what part of the Old Law is he breaking.  The Old Law allowed 
divorce for any reason. 

RW:
The Law did not condone divorce for any reason.  You have 
misunderstood Deut24.  It commanded it in the case where the man 
was determined to “put away”.  It made it legal and final as it 
ended the marriage legally and scripturally.  This being true, 
your quibble is apparent.  Jesus did not teach that one who had 
been divorced but married another must leave his new spouse.  
However, he did teach that if one is not legally married the 
marriage is “fornication” and “putting away” was  the thing to 
do.  In such case a divorce was not even necessary.

Brian, the whole problem we are having on MDR is due to the 
misunderstanding people have had regarding the exception clause.  
This explanation is logical, makes sense, allows believing Jesus 
without charging Him with teaching contrary to the Law, allows 
innocent persons in a divorce to not have to be “punished” and 
will not require preachers and elders to become PI’s and Judges 
to determine who was at fault in a divorce and who got to the 
courthouse first, etc. etc.

I asked 5 additional specific questions.   “1) Immediately before 
Matt19:9, do you understand that those who had been divorced by 
their spouse could marry another, and if they had married another 
that the marriage was scriptural and right?” rw  Brian answers, 
“…he allowed it and at that point it was scriptural and right”.

2)  Immediately after Matt19:9 was spoken, were those who had 
been divorced by their spouse not allowed to marry?

Brian wrote: 
2) I haven't said that.  I think that is a possibility.  I also 
think the possibility exists that this did not go into effect 
until the death of Christ.  But two points on this: A)What does 
it matter for us?  Whether it went into effect immediately or at 
Christ's death, it is in effect now.  Why do you fight against 
it? 

RW:
If what you are teaching about Jesus’ teaching contradicting the 
Law on MDR is true, then it doesn’t matter.  I have brought these 
questions forward because they will help those studying this 
issue to see that Jesus did not change the law by teaching that 
divorced persons have no right to a marriage.  Who am I fighting 
against?  Well, I’m fighting against the devil and those who 
teach his doctrine that forbids marriage for the unmarried 
(1Tim4:1-3;1Cor7:8,9).  

Brian wrote: 
B) When it went into effect is not what we are debating.  

RW:
True, but your position demands that Jesus said some truth that 
was not true when He said it.  It is a point that I am making 
that helps expose your arguments.

Brian wrote: 
That he taught different from the Old Law is what we are 
debating, and that is evident from the passages.

RW:
No, we thrashed that around at the beginning of this debate and I 
showed that there is a difference in the terms “contradict” and 
“different”.  That you have refused to accept what the 
dictionaries say and how we commonly use the terms is apparent, 
nevertheless unfortunate.  

“3) Were those who had remarried (after having been divorced) 
suddenly in an adulterous relationship?”  3) See answer 2).

“4) If the answer to #3 is YES, were only the ones who heard 
Jesus guilty of the sin or were all throughout the world guilty 
of adultery if they had been divorced and married another?”

Brian wrote: 
4) See answer 2)

“5) In view of the teachings of Paul, where he said, (Heb 9:17) 
“For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is 
of no strength at all while the testator liveth,” are you saying 
that what Jesus taught in Matt19:9 was “of force” and had 
“strength” at that moment?”

Brian wrote: 
5) I don't think I have ever taught that. You are the one who 
brought that up.>

RW:
Yes, I brought it up because it shows your argument that Jesus 
taught something that was not true when he said it is 
unbelievable.  

Brian wrote: 
Concerning the apostles, they are told in the great commission to 
teach whatsoever I have commanded you, and that the HS would 
bring to their remembrance that to teach.  Christ did teach the 
New Law.  Of that there is no doubt.

Let me see if I can set this up so you can understand this 
Robert.  I will use your words:  1. "It was the apostles who 
taught things that were contrary to the law" (Robert Waters)  2. 
What the apostles taught was what Jesus had taught them (Mt 
28:18-20, John 14, 16) (And Robert according to his next 
paragraph "Paul may well have referred back to what Jesus had 
taught them")  3. Therefore, Jesus taught things contrary to the 
law. 

RW:
Now, he taught some things that are included in the new law, but 
if my memory serves me correctly the last time I looked in my old 
KJV the only thing that was in “red letters” were quotes from him 
in only the gospels, which men later wrote by inspiration.  All 
the rest – Acts of the Apostles and the epistles were taught by 
someone else.

Previously I wrote: “Indeed, Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper.  
But it was not a law that contradicted the Law of Moses.  Paul 
may well have referred back to what Jesus had taught them, or he 
could have had reference to “inspiration”.  Whatever the case, it 
could not have been prudent for Jesus to have taught contrary to 
the Law on MDR, since his apostles were going to teach on the 
subject after His death and could then do so lawfully, even if 
there was a MAJOR change, which there was not.”

Below is Brian’s response:  
Sure the Lord's supper was not in harmony with the Old Law.  If 
an Israelite had partaken of the Lord's supper instead of the 
Passover feast, he would have sinned. Of course it was prudent 
for Jesus to teach.  He was asked a question of the Pharisees. 

RW:
Did Jesus ask the Israelites to take of the Lord’s Supper 
“instead of” the Passover feast?  No.  In contrast, note what you 
say he did regarding MDR.  You say he told those who were 
divorced but remarried that they are living in adultery.  Well, 
actually you are not admitting that, but that is what you contend 
it says!  And this was telling them to do something else 
“instead” of what was taught in the Law.  Thus, by your own 
words, they “would have sinned”, and Jesus would have been the 
cause.  Evidence has been pilled pretty high now showing that 
your idea of what Jesus taught is error.

24. Is it important to follow proper hermeneutics on all subjects 
- to include the rule that forbids construing one passage so as 
to contradict another  (For example: Deut24:1-4 verses Matt. 
19:9), and the rule to consider the circumstances, such as to 
whom is being spoken and what law (or dispensation) was in effect 
at the time? 

Brian wrote: 
#24.  Robert says, "It is never proper hermeneutics to construe 
one passage as to contradict another passage."   > Brian replies, 
sure it is if they are parts of two different laws. > 

RW:
No, Brian, what I said is true.  You seem to have no problem with 
construing passages so as to contradict another.  The fact is, a 
good Bible student will use proper hermeneutics to show how or 
why such passages are not “true contradictions” by use of other 
rules.  There are no contradictions in God’s word, only alleged 
ones who unbelievers and teachers of error assert to be 
contradictions.  I have an article on this matter on my web site.  
Click on the following to see it: http://www.totalhealth.bz/spiritualneeds/Exegesis%2010rules.html

Brian wrote: 
Robert says, "It is never proper H. to draw a conclusion 
regarding a passage that can only be true if your Lord 
transgressed the law or broke a promise."    Brian replies, but 
his teaching in Matthew 19 contrary to Deut. 24 does not have him 
transgressing or breaking a promise, so that does not apply. >

RW:
Yes, it does have Him breaking a promise.  Remember that he 
promised that not one “jot or tittle would pass from the Law til 
all be fulfilled”.  Your doctrine has the Law regarding divorce 
and second marriages passing before his death.  You quibble that 
it did not take effect till his death but you can’t give a 
logical explanation when asked if it was not true at the time He 
said it, and if those who heard were not responsible to obey at 
that instant.

Brian wrote: 
You can only draw that conclusion if you haven't ready Matthew 19 
with an honest and sincere heart, and if your premises upon which 
you have based your conclusion are in error.  Your two premises 
above ("it is never proper H") are inaccurate. 

RW:
The above is tantamount to charging that I am dishonest, which 
serves no useful purpose.  I will not return the insult, for it 
would be equally detrimental.  The reader will decide in their 
own mind if anyone in this discussion is not being honest.

Brian wrote: 
You keep saying the same thing Robert, and none of it is accurate 
logically or accurate scripturally.  As Jesus told the hypocrites 
in Matthew 6:7b, "for they think that they shall be heard for 
their much speaking." 

RW:
It is much harder to UN teach someone than it is to merely teach 
one who has not first learned error.  In instances where people 
have learned error it takes practicing the three R’s: Repetition, 
Repetition, & Repetition, and much patience.  I’m a very patient 
man.

Brian did not have anything particularly to say in response to 
the following: “When you consider “who is being addressed” and 
“what dispensation (or Law) was in effect,” you can draw only one 
conclusion, and that is that Jesus’ teachings in Matt19:9 were in 
complete harmony with the Law he was expected to obey, and did 
obey.  Your assertion that Jesus contradicted the Law, and 
changed it (regarding MDR) is a charge his enemies did not make.  
When you consider that his enemies were there and understood the 
language perfectly, but that you were not there, it is amazing 
and troubling that they did not charge him with changing the Law, 
but you have done so.”

25.  If one recognizes that it is untrue that Jesus contradicted 
Moses in his teachings on Divorce and Remarriage must they, if 
they follow rules of hermeneutics, conclude that Jesus did not 
teach against a divorced person marrying and therefore look for 
another logical conclusion?

Brian wrote: 
#25.  Referring to Robert's question, Brian says, But one cannot 
recognize that unless they redefine some words/phrases, as Robert 
has done, or unless they ignore the argument Jesus is using in 
Matthew 19:1-9. 
Robert says I have not looked at all the passages.  Yes, Robert I 
have.  Obviously you have not or you would not redefine put away.  
I also understand God originally laid out his principle Genesis 
2, he allowed divorce for any reason under the Old Law in Deuter. 
24, because of the hardness of their hearts, and upon being 
questioned about it, Jesus went back to the principle God 
originally laid out as the valid teaching on MDR (Matthew 19).  
Perhaps Robert is the one in error in not rightly dividing the 
word of truth. 

Previously I wrote: “Brian, you have committed the very same 
error that many of our denominational friends have made in 
interpreting Jn3:16 to mean that salvation comes at the point of 
faith.  Without considering hermeneutics, to include the rules to 
“not construe one passage so as to contradict another” and to 
“get all the scriptures on a subject and study them before 
drawing your conclusion”, they base their entire doctrine on what 
the passage appears to say.  And, if these rules don’t exist or 
should not be followed, their argument (which sounds exactly like 
your argument) is sound and they are correct in their belief and 
teachings.  Brian, I’m not trying to make Jesus say something he 
did not. You are! And all the hermeneutical rules have been 
applied to the position I have taken and not one of them has been 
violated.  Your doctrine cannot be correct, regardless of how 
“clear” you think your “proof-text” is, because virtually every 
hermeneutical rule must violated or ignored.  Just as James 2:24 
clearly condemns the doctrine of “faith only”, 1Tim4:1-4 and 
1Cor7:2;8, 9; 27, 28 clearly condemns the doctrine you are trying 
to defend.” 

Brian responds: 
”None of the hermeneutical rules you have posted have been 
violated or ignored, so which ones are you referring to?

RW:
I listed a couple of them previously and some in the paragraph to 
which Brian was responding.  Also, I have given a link to a page 
that has 10 rules.  In that article I show how that virtually 
every one of the rules are ignored or over looked by those who 
teach what I suspect Brian teaches on MDR.

Brian continues:  
1 Timothy 4:1-4 is not referring to MDR.  It is referring to 
celibacy. Now Robert, who is mishandling God's word.  

RW:
Are we to believe that 1Tim4:1-4 has nothing to do with whether 
one who is divorced may remarry even though it is charged that 
requiring celibacy, described as “forbidding to marry”, is 
“doctrines of devils”?  Brian acknowledges that the passage 
refers to “celibacy”, but he thinks it is ok for him to teach 
that the divorced must remain celibate because he can’t see that 
Jesus could not have changed the Law, and that God no longer 
required divorced persons to marry. I have knocked the props out 
from under that idea.  Thus, he and others, need to restudy the 
teachings of the apostle Paul regarding who may marry.

Brian wrote: 
1 Corinthians 7 deals with some questions which seem to come from 
the present distress, vr. 26, and questions about Christians 
being married to non-Christians.  While divorce (or perhaps 
separation) is mentioned, nowhere is the right to remarry when 
divorced for reasons other than fornication mentioned. 

RW:
It is strange that Brian talks about there not being the right to 
“remarry” after one has divorced, because, as he argues, 
“remarriage is not mentioned”.  First, it is mentioned in the 
context of one whose spouse died.  But why is remarriage not 
mentioned in the case where one is divorced?  Is it because it is 
not allowed?  No, the problem with “remarriage” is in Brian’s 
head. He has determined that Jesus changed the Law, which allowed 
marriage after a divorce, to where divorce was still allowed but 
not marriage, and therefore he cannot see anything else.  The 
text of 1Cor assumes that one who has no marriage is “unmarried”.  
Note how Brian deals with this conundrum below: 

Brian wrote: 
1 Cor. 7:2 - Not referring to divorced people.  Referring to 
single people.  (I think you need to look at some hermeneutical principles here). 

RW:
Does the passage refer to single people?  Let us look at it: 
“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own 
wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

Brian’s doctrine will not allow a logical conclusion in regard to 
this passage.  Nevertheless, the logical conclusion of the death 
of a spouse, or a divorce, is that it leaves one who was married 
without a marriage.  Thus, when one is without a marriage (a 
spouse) the teachings from Paul are applicable to that person.  
Not only that, they are applicable to any who might think one who 
had been divorced must be punished with celibacy.  He said to let 
them have a marriage and stated the reason for doing so, which 
was to help them “avoid fornication” (vs2). 

Then Brian states that verses 8,9 are 
“Speaking of the unmarried and widows. Not dealing with those 
divorced unscripturally.”

RW:
Note the passage carefully: (1Co 7:8) “I say therefore to the 
unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as 
I.  9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is 
better to marry than to burn.”

Brian cannot accept the clear teaching of the above passage 
because of his idea that one is “divorced unscripturally” unless 
they INITIATED the divorce (I’m assuming he does not hold to the 
“mental divorce” doctrine or one of the others twists…).  The 
fact is, Paul tells Brian, and any others who would object to 
people who have no marriage, which included the divorced, to “LET 
THEM MARRY”.  It is impossible to prove that “unmarried” does not 
apply to single people, widowed, and divorced.  Brian’s assertion 
can only be true if his idea that Jesus changed the Law is true 
and that he, contrary to the Law, stated that one divorced 
commits adultery if they marry.  Thus, Brian may as well try to 
pick himself up by his own boot straps as to try to prove his 
explanation of Paul’s teachings in the manner that we have seen.

Brian wrote: 
1 Cor. 7:27-28  Dealing with the issue of the present distress, 
not dealing with people who are divorced unscripturally. Talk 
about mishandling the Bible, where do you find unscriptural 
divorces here.  Read the chapter in its context. 

RW:
The text: 1Co 7:27,28 - “Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to 
be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.  28 But 
and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, 
she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the 
flesh: but I spare you.”

It seems that before Brian will be willing to accept what Paul 
clearly teaches in 1 Cor7 I’m going to first have to produce a 
passage that says, “This has to do with divorced persons”.  No, 
that would not work because he required that it say 
“UNscripturally divorced”.    Where do you find unscriptural 
divorces here in the text.  That is a problem unique to those who 
are determined to base their conclusions on MDR on what they have 
been told Jesus taught.  It sounds like Brian is one of those 
liberals who, in justification of their unauthorized practices, 
ask, “Where does the Bible say we can’t do this…?”   As noted 
above, one who has no marriage is one who is eligible for 
marriage.  Brian better hope he is right about one being divorced 
not being allowed to marry because if not he is telling people 
that “if they marry” they DO sin.  Thus, he is “forbidding to 
marry”, which is evil (1Tim.4:1-4). 

Paul gives some qualifications for who can marry, but they are 
not what you would read in such journals as GOT, STS, GT, or from 
Brian’s pen.  Such assertions are the teachings of men.  Those 
qualification God has given have to do with three things:  1) Age 
- being a “man”.  Paul said, “any man” (1Cor7:36), which Brian 
does not believe, since he excludes a man if he has been 
divorced.   2) In the case of the woman he says, “if she pass the 
flower of her age, and need so require.” 3) And, there seems to 
be a requirement regarding sexual ability. 1Co 7:7 “For I would 
that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper 
gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.” And 
the principle that husband and wife “become one flesh”. 

One of the problems with Brian’s position that requires celibacy, 
is that MEN who have “his proper gift” need marriage to “avoid 
fornication”.  The very persons who need it most, one’s whose 
spouse has divorced them for someone else, and having experienced 
sexual relations, are told the opposite of what Paul said.  Paul 
said, “Let the marry”.  Friends, will you believe what the 
inspired writer said?  Or will you believe Brian Galloway who 
tells you these passages do not apply in the case of one who has 
been divorced.  His assertion is based upon what He thinks Jesus 
taught, but I have shown that Jesus could not have taught 
contrary to the Law, thus what Brian contends He taught MUST be 
error.  

There have been various explanations regarding what Jesus taught 
that allow for harmony of the scriptures, but in the next debate 
I shall endeavor to fully explain to you my position on Mat19:3-
12.  Of course, you may go to my web site and get a preview, but 
based upon what I’ve seen Brian write already, in his effort to 
show my position to be error, I don’t expect that he is going to 
come up with any argument that I have not already satisfactorily 
dealt with in the past.

Brian continues:  
Robert types out several meaningless paragraphs and then states, 
"I have shown an abundance of evidence (in this affirmative) that 
Jesus' teaching were in complete harmony with God's law that was 
in effect at that time." 1. First, this is not an affirmative.  This is a response to my reply. 

RW:
Brethren, I have been in the affirmative – affirming the 
following:  "Jesus' teachings in Matt19:3-12 and 5:32 were in 
complete harmony with Moses' Law, which allowed for legal 
divorce."  

Brian has been in the negative.  I am confident that many 
brethren, even brethren who agree with Brian, regarding Jesus’ 
teachings as pertaining to the “exception clause” and divorced 
people being required to remain celibate, find it hard to believe 
that a brother in Christ would actually agree to deny in debate 
the above proposition.  I think I put it on lists and it floated 
around for years with no takers.  I was delighted that a man of 
Brian ability accepted the challenge. The evidence that I have 
used to sustain the above proposition was presented in the 
proposition Brian affirmed and is seen in virtually every one of 
the questions I asked.  

Brian wrote: 
That's what you call it, and you have set forth no new evidence 
or argument.  Perhaps you have no new evidence or argument? 2. 
You have not shown any evidence that Jesus' teaching was in 
harmony with the old law.  All you have done is try to redefine 
"Put away" different from the usage in the Bible, misapply rules 
of hermeneutics, and ignore the clear evidence God gives us.  Of 
course I realize, in taking a false position, you can do little 
else. 
Robert ends with thanking me for my attitude.  I wish I could 
reply the same, but Robert has stooped during this entire debate 
of trying to insult me instead of dealing with the proposition at 
hand. 

RW:
I guess it was nice while it lasted.  But I suppose that when 
people get under pressure and a doctrine that is precious to them 
is being exposed, they will say things and do things they would 
not otherwise do.  Hopefully, for the remainder of our 
discussions, Brian will try to keep things on a higher level and 
leave off such remarks as quoted above.  Brian, I have not tried 
to insult you and have dealt with the proposition as hand.  You 
have not made one single argument that I did not address and 
there were no efforts on my part to dodge any point you made.  
Though, for the most part, you responded forthrightly, some of my 
questions obviously gave you some problems – problems that you 
have one more opportunity to work out.  

Below are some of the words I wrote that Brian says were 
“meaningless paragraphs”: “Brian’s position stands or falls with 
the idea that Jesus changed the Law before He said He would, 
before it was lawful for Him to so do, and before anyone would 
have accepted it.” 

“Brian failed to prove a single point in his affirmative and 
evidently learned some things regarding what Jesus meant when he 
said, “But I say unto you”. 

Below, in my conclusion, are some more words that we can expect 
Brian to criticize:

Brethren, some think that what I teach allows people to commit 
adultery.  But when you stand back and take an honest look at the 
problems with the view that requires divorced persons to remain 
celibate, while considering the apostle’s teachings, you have to 
wonder “can this really be the truth?”  Once you get to this 
point, if you sincerely desire the truth and are willing to 
sacrifice to have it, it is just a matter of seeking for it in 
the proper way, i.e., using proper hermeneutics.  Brian 
discredits himself by ridiculing my appeal to the proper manner 
of studying the word of God. (Who can deny that they the rules I 
use are proper?) But this is a difficult subject and we (as I 
did) may have to work on our own prejudices for years before we 
can see clearly.  The problem with many gospel preachers is that 
they have just accepted what they were taught, without question, 
and then taught it and seek to defend it.  After having done 
that, for many, pride may be a factor preventing them from seeing 
and/or changing.  And, of course, as was the case when I was 
dependent upon support from churches, it is difficult to study 
MDR with the view that you are going to find the truth when the 
truth is, if you don’t “tow the line”, you are going to be fired 
and will likely have difficulty getting support.  This thought 
infuriates some, but honest thinking men know it is true, just as 
it has been true, in some areas, regarding the “continual 
cleansing verses perfectionism” issue.

Since I changed on the MDR issue God has blessed me with a 
wonderful place to preach the gospel and in many other ways as 
well.  I have great sorrow because of some who I’m certain that 
my error, before I learned it was error, (which was what Brian 
would now have you to believe) contributed to some rejecting 
Christ and others turning from Christ.  People who have made a 
mistake in marriage, and were divorced, are not to be punished by 
celibacy.  That is man’s doctrine.  God’s doctrine is that they 
will be forgiven of past sins, if they repent, and obey the 
gospel. They can then “walk in the light” while enjoying a 
marriage, which is God’s means of helping them “avoid 
fornication”.  The contention of men like Brian Galloway, that 
persons who have no marriage commit adultery against their spouse 
(Mk10:11) by marrying another, is really ludicrous, when you 
think about it.  How can you commit adultery against a spouse who 
has divorced you and married another?  You cannot.  Brian says 
you can, but his theory is based upon an assertion (with no 
scriptural proof) that the person is still married “in God’s 
eyes” (as they say), and his assertion that Jesus taught celibacy 
for the divorced, though the idea is contrary to the Law He 
followed and obeyed every day of his life.  The only logical 
conclusion regarding this particular discussion is that what I 
have taught is truth, which is clearly seen when you accept that 
the Jews were not successful in their efforts to get Jesus to 
teach contrary to the Law and that Jesus never taught a thing 
that was contrary and thus a violation of the Law, which allowed 
divorced person to marry.

Brotherly, Robert Waters