Divorce And Re-Marriage Discussion

E-mail Discussion Between Tim Eldridge And Roy Runyon On The Subject Of Divorce & Re-Marriage

Tim's first comment on my article of Divorce and Remarriage: "Jesus was a "minister of the circumcision" and was restoring the Old Law before he died. There is NEVER a cause for divorce under the New Covenant. And, when there was divorce for the "one cause" under the Old Covenant -- the guilty party was stoned -- put to death."

Roy,

1) was Mk.1:1-4, Jn.6:53 and Mt.26:26ff restoring the Old Law?
2) why was the Old Law not enforced in Jn.8:3ff?
3) Please explain the "one cause" under the Old Law.

Response#1 01/08/16 1:23pm CMT

Deu 22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

Deu 22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

Deu 22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

Deu 22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

Deu 22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

Deu 22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

Deu 22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

Deu 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

Deu 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Deu 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Deu 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

Deu 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

Deu 22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
*************************************************************

These verses plainly show that death by stoning was given to the guilty party.
***********************************************************

In Deut 24 --- we see "some uncleanness". The guilty party was not stoned. From the beginning "it" was not so. Jesus was simply teaching the "who" of Matt 19 (followers of the Old Law) that Deut 22 was what Moses allowed and not Deut 24.

Response#2 01/08/16 1:27pm CMT

Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

***

Jesus forgave her. She was guilty of the letter of the law. Her accusers were guilty of sin. She could have been stoned. But, those accusing her were hypocrites.

Response#3 01/08/16 1:30pm CMT

In a study of any verse in the Bible --- simple questions must be asked regarding the immediate context: WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW, and WHY.

Response#4 01/08/16 1:37pm CMT

Mar 1:40 And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

Mar 1:41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

Mar 1:42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.

Mar 1:43 And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;

Mar 1:44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

***
Jesus told the leaper to show himself to the priest and abide by Moses commands.
***
The folks being baptized in the early part of this chapter did not receive the Holy Spirit. The HS was given to those obeying the gospel until Jesus died.

Roy:

Would you elaborate on the following statement so I fully understand what you are saying here:

"In Deut 24 --- we see "some uncleanness". The guilty party was not stoned. From the beginning "it" was not so. Jesus was simply teaching the "who" of Matt 19 (followers of the Old Law) that Deut 22 was what Moses allowed and not Deut 24."

Response#5 01/08/16 3:19pm CMT

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour 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.

Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

***********************************************************

What was the some uncleanness? Burnt toast ? If it was a wrongful sexual act --- the stoning in Deut 22 is what should have taken place.
************************************************************
"It" -- divorce
************************************************************
Who (Matt 19:9) --- followers of the Old Law
************************************************************

Response#6 01/08/16 4:00pm CMT

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. e LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
***************************************************

Jesus blood had not be shed just yet. The New Covenant was not yet in effect.
***************************************************

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

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.

Response#7 01/08/16 4:04pm CMT

Jesus was teaching the disciples (who) what to do (when) after he died on the cross.
*****************************************
Matt 28 and baptism. Who was baptism for the remissions of sins being commissioned to be taught ???? The disciples. When ? After Jesus died on the cross.

****************************************************************

Response#8 01/08/16 4:16pm CMT

Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Response#9 01/08/16 4:20pm CMT

Jesus said in John 6:28-29:

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

******************************************************

Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

***********
When --- was Jesus to believed "on" so that His blood could wash away sins and the believer could receive the Holy Sprit which is the "earnest" of our salvation ???? When---after Jesus died.

Jesus was born, lived, and died under the Old Testament

His blood took affect --- when.......after he died.

Response#10 01/08/16 5:25pm CMT

Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.

Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
*********************************************
Jesus was teaching them how to pray. They were to pray for the kingdom to come. A future date. When Jesus died on the cross and shed his blood by Acts 2:47 his kingdom had come. Thus, the Old Covenant was gone and the New was in vogue.

Response#11 01/08/16 5:33pm CMT

"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," (Mt.5:31-32).
*****************************************

Mat 8:1 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.

Mat 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

Mat 8:3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

Mat 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Response#12 01/08/16 5:37pm CMT

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

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.

****************
He was fulfilling the law. Thus, it was still in effect.

Response#13 01/08/16 5:38pm CMT

Who was Jesus teaching in the above verses ? Who --- Jews. When, during the Old Law --- before his death !

Roy: 5:41pm CMT

Could you be a little more specific on this statement?

"Jesus was teaching the disciples (who) what to do (when) after he died on the cross."

Do you mean:

a) after He died on the cross, He was teaching His disciples what to do,

b) before He died on the cross, He was teaching His disciples what to do after the cross.

Response#14 01/08/16 5:50pm CMT

Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

*******************
I don't know all the particulars here. But, Jesus was obviously teaching the disciples what to do after He died on the cross.

They drank the cup in verse 27 but -- His blood was not shed just yet. It was about to be. There was NO forgiving blood just yet nor was there a gift of the Holy Sprit to believers until after He died.

Roy: 6:03pm CMT

So, "prior" to the cross, Jesus was teaching His disciples something they were to do "after" the cross?

Is this correct in regards to Mt.26:26ff ?

Response#15 01/08/16 5:52pm CMT

Jesus' teaching in the above verses was to a limited audience. This "letter" was not even penned while He was still alive.

Response#16 01/08/16 6:23pm CMT

Were they not ???

Response#17 01/08/16 6:24pm CMT

Matt 28 was commissioned to the Apostles after the Old Law was nailed to the cross.

Response#18 01/08/16 6:28pm CMT

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

*************************************************
The church was about to be established. Jesus had to leave and send the "comforter" which had not happened just yet.

Response#19 01/08/16 6:34pm CMT

Mar 15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Mar 15:38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

Mar 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

********************************************************

The veil of the temple was rent. This was symbolic of Jesus body -- the true veil through which He (Jesus) enter the true Holiest of Holy -- heaven itself. Hebrews 7,8,9, and 10

********************************************************

Roy:

Ok, using the email like a chat box is getting very confusing. I'm having trouble keeping track with them all. I guess I'm just a little dense perhaps. Your patience will be much appreciated.

Regarding my previous question, "yes" or "no" will be much easier for me to understand. "Were they not?" does not compute :).

So, "prior" to the cross, Jesus was teaching His disciples something they were to do "after" the cross?

Is this correct in regards to Mt.26:26ff ?

There's no disagreement that we must look at the context of "who" "what" etc. There's no disagreement that Jesus lived and died under the LOM, and that He taught those people to abide by that law, I stated that in my article. There's no disagreement that the Holy Spirit wasn't given until Pentecost. I want to know where the Bible says Jesus was restoring the Old Law as per your comment; I want an explanation of what "except it be for fornication" means; I want to know if Jn.6:53-58 was part of the LOM.

Response#20 01/08/16 8:40pm CMT

saving for the cause: fornication

Fornication - one cause
***************************************************************************************

Jesus was clearing up the erroneous teaching in Deut 24 and teaching the Jews under the old law to only divorce for the one cause -- fornication which always included stoning. Jesus was talking to audience that knew the law. He was getting them to see what was allowed more clearly. Maybe I shouldn't have said "restore" as such. Jesus did fulfill the law. He was teaching them a clearer view of the old law before he died on the cross.
*************************************************************************************

From Bro. Harry Cobb (deceased):

"The "saving for" the cause of fornication" and "except it be for fornication" must be understood, therefore, to have some other application. Since Jesus was speaking to those who knew the Law and were inquiring as to its meaning, He was certainly not going to teach something contrary to the Law. He said, in effect, that what Moses suffered was not what God intended from the beginning, It was not what God had required in Deut. 22:13-30 where God's provision was to "put away evil from among you" by stoning (Deut. 22:21,22,24). The writing of divorcement allowed in Deut. 24 appears to have been a later provision suffered because of the hardness of your hearts",

The exception referred to by Jesus was not at all to permit divorce and remarriage. He spoke of marriage as a permanent bond entered into for life and dissolvable only by death (Matt. 19: 3-6). The exception of which Jesus spoke was for fornication, which when committed, was punishable by death. Upon the death of the fornicator, the remaining companion to that marriage could remarry. Why could he do so? Because the marriage had been dissolved by the death of the fornicator. This cannot be effected during the Christian era, of course because of our instructions against violence and unto peace. Such a situation during the Christian era should be handled in accord with Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 7:10-11, "remain unmarried or be reconciled."

Response#21 01/08/16 8:50pm CMT

Dear Bro Roy,

I thank you very kindly for a gentlemanly conversation with you. If we weren't being kind and respectful - I would have no use for any discussion of this kind.

I think you are an honest individual seeking the honest truth.

Now, with that being said - I don't have all the answers and don't mind saying so to you.

As for asking me about Matt 26:26: Let me ask you a question: how could this have been considered the "literal" Lord's supper when Jesus had not died yet ? That is why I'm saying he was teaching what to do for a later date -- namely, after He died. His blood had no affect at all while it was still in his veins. :)

I don't know how else to put it.

Maybe I should have said "fulfill" instead of "restore". What I meant by restore is that Jesus was telling the Jews that Deut 24 never was in God's plan and was to be ignored. And, that they (the Jews under the old law) was to abide by the teaching under Deut 22.
I love you brother and enjoy brotherly discussions such as this.

God's blessings,

Tim

Response#22 01/08/16 9:07pm CMT

The Lord's Supper is done in memory. "This do in remembrance of me" It is not a literal sacrifice. That was done on the cross.
****************

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
*************
Jesus had not died in Matt 26:26. His blood had not been shed for the new Covenant. Thus, is was not done in memory of him while He was still alive. The Lord's supper is a memorial of what He did. In Matt 26:26 He had not done it just yet. This teaching was to a limited audience.

Response#23 01/09/16 1:20am CMT

Put simply -- Matt 19:9 -- Jesus was referring to Deut 22 which was nailed to the cross.

Roy:

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

In this verse, would you identify which one of the next two questions accurately describes what the Pharisees were asking Jesus?

a) Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?

b) Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for every cause?

Again, we have no disagreement whatsoever on Jesus living and dying under the LOM, and that He taught those people to abide by that law, nor that His new covenant wasn't in force until after the cross, so you can save space by not further proving something already we agree on.

Response#24 01/09/16 6:57am CMT

Mat 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.

************************************
Jesus was not teaching something new or contrary to the Old Law.

**********************************************************

In 19:3 they asked concerning "every" cause.

Jesus pointed out that "it" was never in God's plan and Moses allowed for the hardness of their heart.

Thus, to the Jews under the Old Law -- he said -- for the "one" cause.

Roy:

Now, you said, "Jesus was not teaching something new or contrary to the Old Law."

Mar 10:12 "And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

1) What part of the Old Law is Jesus teaching here?

Mat 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

2) "Who" were the people that these "multitudes" were comprised of?

Response#25 01/09/16 9:36pm CMT

Mar 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Mar 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

**************************************************

The meaning of these verses are the same as the ones we've been studying. Jesus is simply saying you can't divorce for any reason. you can only divorce for the cause of fornication which includes death by stoning.

Verse 11 -- how could he commit adultery against if she wasn't still alive? If he wasn't divorcing her for fornication -- he had no right to divorce. And, the same meaning is true of verse 12.

Response#26 01/09/16 9:36pm CMT

Again, Jesus was not teaching anything new or contrary to the Old Law.

Roy:

You didn't answer either of these two questions. If Jesus was not teaching anything "new" but merely expounding on the LOM, then the command for the woman to divorce a husband "must" be there, and in order for you to prove your statement, you must show me in the LOM where that command is in which Jesus was teaching. You see, I suggest that that command is "not" there and this is corroborated not only because it is not there, but also by the statement of a Jewish historian contemporary to Jesus and the apostles.

Josephus says, "...Salome...sent him a bill of divorce, and dissolved her marriage with him, though this was not according to the Jewish laws; for with us it is lawful for a husband to do so; but with the wife, if she departs from her husband, cannot of herself be married to another, unless her former husband put her away," (emphasis added). I can look up the book & page # if you want for this quote, so, again, please show me in the LOM where the command is for the woman to divorce her husband.

The second question pertained to the people who made up the "multitudes" who were listening to Jesus' sermon on the mount, who were they? I'll give you a little help:

2) "Who" were the people that these "multitudes" were comprised of?

a) Jews who rejected what Jesus taught;

b) Jews who had obeyed via being baptized at the teaching of John & Jesus who were then Christ's disciples?

Response#27 01/10/16 9:14am CMT

"It" never was commanded. It was allowed for the hardness of their hearts. That which was allowed was Deut 22. Deut 24 was never part of what God allowed. Jesus was telling them to abide by Deut 22 and not 24.

Josephus is not inspired and thus sheds no light on this conversation. It's a matter of "what the bible says".

When Jesus was talking about divorce in Matt 19 -- there is no new teaching.

*********************************************************************************************

After the sermon on the mount (context):

Mat 8:1 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.

Mat 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

Mat 8:3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

Mat 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

***
Jesus told the leper to abide by the old law.

***

Let me ask you a question: was the leper baptized in John's baptism? If so -- did he really have to go to the priest and offer what Moses commanded?

*******************************************************************************

Roy:

You still have not answered either of the questions: please do so.

If you can quote bro. Harry Cobb (all due respect to our brother) then I can quote a well-known Jewish historian, for you see, any "truth" will harmonize with the Bible, because as we both would agree, the Bible is right.

You asked: "...was the leper baptized in John's baptism? If so -- did he really have to go to the priest and offer what Moses commanded?"

There's no way to know with certainty if he was baptized, just like there's no way to know for sure the thief on the cross, the man cured of palsy or the woman taken in the act of adultery was baptized of John's baptism, but again, we have no disagreement whatsoever over the fact that Jesus told him to abide by the LOM.

RE: Mt.8:1-4 we have no disagreement on the leper being told to abide by the LOM.

Here's where I suggest that you are missing a valid point and dodging my second question: you said, "After the sermon on the mount (context):" How about looking at the "content" of the sermon on the mount, and the circumstances leading up to our Lord's discourse.

Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," (Mt. 5:3).

The opening statement of our Lord's sermon on the mount reveals His teaching pertained to the gospel of the kingdom of heaven, which is unquestionably corroborated when one will look at the surrounding context, of what precedes this passage, as well as what follows.

"Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;" (Mt. 4:12). Let's allow this verse to represent all the preaching of John that they were to repent of their sins and be baptized, because the kingdom was at hand. "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," (Mt. 4:17). "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel," (Mk. 1:14-15).

The following passages reveal events which also occurred prior to the sermon on the mount:

"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears," (Lk. 4:16-21).

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 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," (Jn.3: 3-5).

Our Lord makes it clear in His own words that His mission was to preach the gospel.

"And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent," (Lk. 4:43).

"And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this?" (Mk. 1:27).

So, I ask you again, who were the people who made up the multitudes to whom Jesus preached the sermon on the mount?

"And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:" (Mt. 5:1).

Response#28 01/10/16 3:01pm CMT

And, you are correct, when quoting articles or books --- it's ok as long as it's related. I knew you would have a good rebuttal.

The question you are asking ..... has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus was telling the folks in Matt 19:9 to go back to Deut 22 and leave off Deut 24. Jesus was not introducing anything new in Matt 19:9.

Under the Old Law they were taught "eye for eye". Jesus said leave your gift at the altar and be reconciled to your brother. He was teaching love and forgiveness but also said don't offer your gifts (Old Law) until you and your brother are in harmony.

So, the question you want answered has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

And, you may use any book you want. :) I was having fun with you.

This is an humble conversation between brothers in Christ.

Response#29 01/10/16 3:19pm CMT

This is a specific statement about Matt 19:9

Jesus was not teaching anything new about divorce and remarriage. Nor was what he taught about divorce and remarriage contrary to what was allowed for the hardness of their hearts.

He told the leper to go to the priest under the Old Law.

He told the person to wait about offering gifts until they were reconciled with their brother.

Response#30 01/10/16 3:23pm CMT

Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

Mat 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

****
Here, Jesus is teaching the "brother" to not offer a gift according to the law just yet -- until he was reconciled to his "brother".
******

What about "eye for eye" instead of reconciliation?

Response#31 01/10/16 3:29pm CMT

Do you offer gifts on an altar like they did in the Old Testament?

Roy:

While I'm processing these past emails, I want you to help me understand something: you keep dodging my question of where in the LOM Jesus was teaching from in regards to a woman divorcing her husband, and continue to insist that He wasn't teaching anything "new" or "contrary" to the LOM. Now, as you well know, God 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);

"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it," (Deut.12:32);

"Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest," (Jos.1:7);

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar," (Prov.30:6).

I need you to help me understand that IF Jesus was telling them in Mt.19:9 to just ignore what Moses said in Deut.24:1-4, how He is not guilty of teaching something "contrary" to the LOM?

Response#32 01/10/16 8:00pm CMT

Deu 22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

Deu 22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

Deu 22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

Deu 22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

Deu 22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

***
The husband was seeking a divorce but she was still a virgin.
***

He could not put her away.
********************************************************

Deu 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

***
If she had not been a virgin had committed fornication -- she would have been stoned. When someone is stoned -- they die -- and thus the other party can re-marry.
*******

Deu 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
***
Adultry is a specific form of fornication. In verse 22 both parties are to die.
***

Deu 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

***
Death due to fornication
***

Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

***
She did not consent in verse 25 and thus he only is to die.
***

Deu 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

Deu 22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Deu 22:30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.

************************************************

Bro Roy --- death by stoning is what makes divorce possible under the old law. These verse are what Jesus was teaching in Matt 19:9

************************************************

In chapter 24 --- they were divorcing for "some uncleanness". What was the uncleanness?
*************

************

Jesus said in Matt 19 that they could only divorce for fornication.

In verse 1 of Deut 24 they were divorcing for some uncleanness? This is what Jesus was telling them they were wrong in doing. They could not divorce for "any" reason. They could only divorce for fornication as taught in Deut 22. Deut 22 was allowed for the hardness of their heart. Deut 24:1-4 was never allowed period. This is not part of inspiration. This was what they were doing wrong and Jesus was teaching those who knew the law to disregard and go back to what Moses allowed --- Deut 22.
*****************************************************
Bro Roy -- I can't get any plainer than this. :)

******************************************************

Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

Deu 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

Deu 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Response#33 01/10/16 11:19pm CMT

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

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.

******************
The Old Law was in affect til Jesus died on the cross. He was the promised Messiah that he been prophesied of in the Old Testament.

The high priest in the OT (Old Testament) symbolized Christ.

The high priest going into the holiest of holy symbolized Christ dying on the cross and going to heaven to be our high priest.

Jesus was in no way destroying the Old Law (OL).

In Matt 5:19 Jesus discussed "breaking one of the least of these commandments".

He was telling them to abide by the OL and not break not even one of the "least" of these commandments.

Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

Mat 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Jesus is teaching them to offer gifts according to the OL with the right attitude toward their brother. They were to be reconciled.
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.

Matthew 5:31 is from Deuteronomy 24 that was never allowed and thus Jesus was telling them to quit "divorcing" by authority of Deut 24

In Mat.5:32 Jesus told them put away their wives for the cause of fornication only.

Jesus was clearing up the teaching of the OL on the issue of putting away.

Bro Roy -- I don't know what else to say. :)

Roy:

Again, we have no disagreement on Jesus coming to fulfill the LOM, nor that He was the Messiah, nor that the LOM was in force until His death, nor that He taught them to abide by the LOM, we do not disagree on these points, however, in the immortal words of Jack Swigert, "Houston, we've had a problem here," you and I have encountered a serious problem in this dialogue. I say this with all due respect and love: you do NOT have the authority to determine what portion(s) of scripture is "uninspired"!! You stated, "Deut 24:1-4 was never allowed period. This is not part of inspiration." If you, Tim, have the authority to say Deut.24:1-4 is not inspired, then a Baptist likewise can say that Acts 2:38 is not inspired, but neither is acceptable in this discussion! I don't like the fact that David, being a prophet of God, invented mechanical instruments into the worship of God, which also was not according to God's original design, but he did, and when dealing with the instrumental brethren, I have to deal with it. Deut.24:1-4 was a command written my Moses. Look at the very words of the Bible:

"Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement?"

Jesus, "answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?"

"Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept."

Now, we don't disagree that what Moses wrote wasn't God's original intention, but for you to say that it is "not part of inspiration" is beyond your authority, and you should repent of this flaw.

Reflect again on the passage I showed you in Joshua:

"Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest."

This was stated by inspiration of the Holy Ghost long after Deut.24:1-4 was written, and if you, Tim, can select whatever passage doesn't agree with your position and declare it "uninspired" then you are "turning to the right hand and turning to the left hand" and you certainly are "diminishing aught" from it!

That said, I must point out that I see a repeating pattern here of you not answering simple questions, and I can't figure out for sure if it's because you see where the obvious conclusion leads, or if you simply don't understand how to answer them. Perhaps a third option would my failure in elocution of said questions, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and we'll work at it as being my deficiency.

The first premise, which you haven't out-rightly denied, but refuse to acknowledge as being true, is the fact overwhelmingly stated in the Gospels that Jesus' mission was to preach the gospel in preparation of the approaching kingdom of God. You stated, "In Matt 5:19 Jesus discussed "breaking one of the least of these commandments". He was telling them to abide by the OL and not break not even one of the "least" of these commandments."

The point you're avoiding is in that very same verse:

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.

He was preaching the gospel of the kingdom, which they could adhere to WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LOM!

Now, were these "multitudes" of people, Jews who had been baptized at the teaching of John & Jesus making them Christ's disciples? Yes, or No?

Again you said, "Jesus was telling them to abide by Deut 22 and not 24." Reflecting on the passages I previously quoted of Deut.4:2; 12:32; Jos.1:7 & Prov.30:6 if Jesus was telling them to not abide by or ignore or disregard a certain portion of the LOM, then He was "contradicting" the LOM, the very thing you insist that He was NOT doing. The point you are missing is that He could teach them God's original intention, superseding the LOM, and if they truly wanted to please God, they could do so WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LOM. By law, they could still divorce for "any" cause because the LOM "suffered it" but likewise they could adhere to the teaching of His gospel, i.e., God's true intention, and not violate the LOM.

Now, another question which you fail to see, again probably due to my lack of ability to explain it properly, is that because Mt.19 and Mk.10 are the same instance and same conversation & subject, they must be harmonized! The fact that Jesus said, "And if a woman shall put away her husband..." proves beyond reasonable question that what Jesus is teaching is not confined to the LOM because this command is not found in the LOM. This is a fact that your position cannot overcome! The only way for you to prove your position is produce the passage(s) in the LOM which gave command for the woman to divorce her husband, so I again reiterate my question of where do you find this command in the LOM?

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Question: could the man continue to adhere to what he had kept from his youth up (verses 17-19) and also do what Jesus said in verse 21 without violating the LOM?

Question: was what Jesus commanded the man in verse 21 part of the LOM?

Question: was His teaching related to the gospel of the kingdom? (cf. verses 23-24).

Response#34 01/11/16 9:25am CMT

If Deuteronomy 24 was part of what God allowed for the hardness of their hearts--why did Jesus tell them to quit going by Deut 24 and start abiding by Deut 22?

Do you stone people who commit fornication where you go to church ? Or are you picking and choosing the part you want when you are trying to use Jesus' teaching on Deut 22 to justify divorce under the new covenant ?

***

John's baptism was preparing the way of Jesus. They didn't have forgiveness of sins under John's baptism. How could they have when Jesus wasn't dead yet ? His blood wasn't shed.
***

Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

***

Why did they have to be re-baptized ???
***

Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
***
John's baptism of repentance didn't give them the Holy Spirit. Only baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus ----- after He died does that !
***

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
***

Are we savable without the Holy Spirit ?
***

If John's baptism forgave sins --- why did they have to be re-baptized ?

***

Jesus made the distinction between Deut 22 and 24. I infer from His teaching that "it" under Deut 24 was NEVER allowed. Thus, Jesus didn't recognize the inspiration of it.
***

Did everything Jesus teach apply to us today?

Why do you think Jesus teaching from the Old Testament (Deut 22 or 24) would apply to the New Testament ? You can't pick and choose. Just because Jesus didn't mention stoning of the guilty party in Matt 19:9 doesn't mean that it didn't apply while Jesus was on the earth.

Roy:

"If Deuteronomy 24 was part of what God allowed for the hardness of their hearts--why did Jesus tell them to quit going by Deut 24 and start abiding by Deut 22?" I've already answered this amply in the previous email. He didn't tell them to quit going by Deut.24, He couldn't tell them to ignore part of the LOM because that would be changing the law which the law forbade. Please show me where He said, "Stop abiding by (insert command(s))."

"Do you stone people who commit fornication where you go to church ?" Of course not, that's a silly question, however, it presents an interesting one: if what you say is true, and Mt.19:9 is an elaboration of Deut.22, then since that was nailed to the cross, what do you teach is to be done with the cheating spouse under Christ's New Covenant?

"Or are you picking and choosing the part you want when you are trying to use Jesus' teaching on Deut 22 to justify divorce under the new covenant ?"  With all due respect, you are the one claiming that part of the Bible is uninspired!  I'm only pointing out that Jesus evaded their attempted trap and that He was not teaching the LOM in Mt.19:9, He was teaching God's purpose from the beginning which the LOM contravened!  In verse 3, The Pharisees approach Jesus and ask, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.”  Notice, He did not say, "Yes," or "No," but He responded with, "Have ye not read…" a statement in which He set Himself in opposition to them every time He said it (Mt.12:3&5; 33:31; 21:16; Mk.2:25; 12:10&26; Lk.6:3).  Notice He does not go to the LOM to prove His statement, but back to God's original institution from the beginning, i.e., one man and one woman, joined for life, thereby skillfully avoiding their snare.  Further evidence that He was not explaining Deut. 24:1-4 is seen in verse 7, when the Pharisees themselves turn to the LOM by saying, " Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"  If He was in agreement with, or explaining the LOM, why did they turn to the LOM to counter His response?

Jesus replied in verse 8, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives…" Moses allowed that which was not God's original intent, "…but from the beginning it was not so." The conjunction "BUT" shows that God's original design of marriage differed with what Moses allowed. What Moses allowed was in opposition to God's universal law from the beginning, as was polygamy which was not considered adultery under the LOM, but is forbidden under the gospel.

In verse 9, harmonized with Mk.10:12, Jesus reinstates God's original law: anyone who divorces their spouse and remarries commits adultery! One man, one woman, a lifetime contract with only one exception, i.e., infidelity; was that what Moses allowed? No, all sexual sin was considered heinous and punishable by death, and Moses allowed divorce (for some uncleanness), and remarriage without adultery being the consequence under an imperfect law that was designed to be temporary (a schoolmaster, Gal. 3:24), and replaced with the perfect law of liberty when the promised Seed came.

"John's baptism was preparing the way of Jesus. They didn't have forgiveness of sins under John's baptism. How could they have when Jesus wasn't dead yet ? His blood wasn't shed." This is off-topic: I mentioned that the multitudes of people present to hear Jesus' sermon on the mount were His disciples because they were baptized of John & Jesus, which the verse I quoted plainly says that it was the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. We agree that His blood was not shed yet, nor that the Holy Spirit was given. Incidentally, His blood flowed backward and cleansed all who lived faithful under the LOM.

Acts 19:1-5

"Why did they have to be re-baptized ???" Again, this is off-topic: they had to be baptized again because they were baptized, after the cross, of John's baptism which was no longer valid, but Christ's disciples present at the sermon on the mount were made disciples by John's baptism because it was valid at that time.

"Are we savable without the Holy Spirit ?" Answered above.

"If John's baptism forgave sins --- why did they have to be re-baptized ?" Answered above.

"Jesus made the distinction between Deut 22 and 24. I infer from His teaching that "it" under Deut 24 was NEVER allowed." I just don't get it! I can't fathom how you can read a black and white sentence, or red-letter in the words of Jesus Who said, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives..." and say that it was NEVER allowed. Yes it was, by Jesus' own words, Moses allowed them to divorce their wives for things less than sexual infidelity: it wasn't God's original intent, but it was tolerated during the LOM.

"Thus, Jesus didn't recognize the inspiration of it." To this, I'm dumbfounded. To believe that GOD ALMIGHTY doesn't recognize His own inspiration is truly remarkable. I just don't know what to say.

"Did everything Jesus teach apply to us today?" Of course not, we both agree that we must consider the context of any given passage.

"Why do you think Jesus teaching from the Old Testament (Deut 22 or 24) would apply to the New Testament ?" I don't. He wasn't teaching the LOM, He was teaching God's universal will on the subject which always existed.

"You can't pick and choose." No I can't, nor am I.

"Just because Jesus didn't mention stoning of the guilty party in Matt 19:9 doesn't mean that it didn't apply while Jesus was on the earth." It did apply while Jesus was on Earth as we both agree that the LOM was in force until the cross.

Now, I have answered every single question you have asked me, and I don't think I've missed any in the 30+ previous emails. It's your turn to answer my questions, or there's no point in this discussion continuing. We don't disagree that Jesus lived in accordance with the LOM, however:

1) Is it also true that He came to preach the gospel, Yes, or no?

2) For clarity's sake, since you agreed with me that the Jews did not ask Jesus if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife, but rather He asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife "for every cause", then do we agree that when Jesus said, "...but from the beginning 'it' was not so" then, "it was not so" is in response to the question, "was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for every cause?" Yes, or no?

3) Could the people, like the man in Mt.19:16 comply with the teachings of Jesus while not violating the LOM? Yes, or no?

4) What do you teach is to be done with the cheating spouse under Christ's New Covenant?

5) Since you said, "There is NEVER a cause for divorce under the New Covenant," would you explain the following: Paul has just said that because of the present distress it would be good for unmarried people to not marry, but goes on to say, "Art thou bound [married] unto a wife? seek not to be loosed [divorced]. Art thou loosed [divorced] from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned," (1 Cor. 7:27-28). Please explain how a divorced man could marry and not sin under the New Covenant.

As I said, if you won't answer these questions, then I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Response#35 01/11/16 8:02pm CMT

Bro Roy, in humility, I've tried the best I know how to explain the truth of this issue. I see no reason to continue this discussion either.

May God the Father bless and keep you. And, let's, by all means, continue to discuss other subjects as we going along on Facebook.

In His Holy Name,

Tim

What The Bible Says Ministry

Discussion On Divorce And Re-Marriage