Another week in Matt 19, and more distortions of the truth to correct! The question was raised whether the disciples were observing that it is better not to marry in the first place, or better not to marry after a divorce. I can't help but think how ridiculous a question that is, because all you have to do is read the next verse where Jesus answers that observation. He wasn't talking about marrying after divorce, because a eunuch is a man who never got married in the first place. The leader tried to claim that the rules for D&R apply both ways. Again, I pointed out to the leader that Scripture never forbids a man whose wife divorces him or commits fornication, from remarrying, and there is no need for a fornication exception, for a wife to divorce her husband. The class leader said, "You and I are going to disagree about this", and he said that we need to take it offline. The disagreement went back and forth for a little while, until someone suggested that we move on to the Rich Young Ruler.
Well, the Rich Young Ruler said that he had kept all of the commandments from the time he was a youth. Of course, the leader said that he would have called the young ruler, a liar, because he is steeped in the "Way of The Master", presentation of the gospel. Of course, WOTM teaches that lust is adultery. I didn't even bring up the fact that the word used in Matt 5:28 is often translated "wife" throughout the New Testament. I simply pointed out that Jesus never said that looking at a man, is adultery. I pointed out that He could have said "man or woman" if that were the case, but the leader tried to claim that Jesus was only speaking to men, and tried to claim that Jesus never really addressed women. He did agree with me that sometimes Jesus did talk directly with women, but his example was the woman at the well, and he tried to pass that off, because this was a one on one conversation. I pointed out that He even addressed women as part of the audience in Mark 10:12, when He said that if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.
I look forward to taking this conversation offline, but I am hoping that he will be honest enough to admit that his argument is not with me, but with the written Word of God. I hope to revisit the polygamy discussion as well, because I want to point out that the "Adam only had one wife" argument, is senseless, and that Solomon's 1,000 wives that led him astray, is an example of argument from the extreme, and that having 2 or three wives, who are not ungodly, will not lead a man astray. If he wants to fall back on the Abraham/Sarah/Hagar argument, I will let him win on that one, but point out that Isaac and Rebekah had problems too, and they were monogamous. Maybe, I will even bring up the fact that Job and Naomi were monogamous as well, at least when calamity struck. He respects my opinion, because he knows that I know Scripture pretty well. I suspect the offline discussion will end with an "I don't know...I will have to look into it further." At that point, I will ask him if he is willing to be honest enough to tell the class that, even though he disagrees with me, he isn't able to refute what I have to say.
I feel great about the opportunity to meet with him online. This is not a situation where he is going to pull out his doctoral credentials, or look down on me, and I do not feel threatened in any way, that our disagreement will lead to expulsion. Our disagreement is not personal, and we get along great with one another. There is a class member who reads from a German Bible and tried to make the point that in his transliteration, it is gender neutral. I responded that it is not gender neutral in the original Greek. He seems to think that his German Bible has more weight than the original Greek. Go figure!
