Jeff Durbin (70:29)
Exactly. So I'm going to do this quickly. You guys ready for this? Quickly. I already dealt a bit with the kings and not taking them to high places thing that comes up often. But, and, and we can't go into all the text today, but numbers 35, the Blood Avenger, came up in the debate. Hopefully my response to that will be helpful to you guys. Also, the issue of slavery comes up in their discussions. The issue of polygamy comes up in their discussions, and the issue of divorce comes up in their discussions. Here's what I want everyone to take note of. It's vitally important to get this point. In none of those instances or examples does God actually give a bill or a decree of injustice. So let's talk about divorce for a second. Now this came up with Rigney, it came up with Toby in another debate, and it came up in our debate. Is divorce something that God had known was going to happen in human history? Of course. But was it a part of his original order? Right. When God creates the world in perfection and there's no sin, and Adam and Eve are upright, they haven't sinned yet, was divorce supposed to be part of the normative experience in that realm? The answer is no. However, when because of the hardness of human hearts, because of sin, as Jesus says in Matthew 19, because of sin and hardness of human hearts, divorce is permissible. But what's interesting here is that they will bring this issue up if it works against them. Here's what I mean by that. When God actually legislates on divorce, he doesn't legislate with injustice. It's always with an eye to justice for the victim in the divorce. Right. Because it's a fallen world and people cheat on their spouses, people beat their spouses, people abandon their spouses, and people neglect marital love with their spouses. And so what does God do in his law? Well, in Exodus 21, verse 10, there's an example of, of responsibilities in the covenant. Let me just read it to you real fast. It's actually about polygamy as well. But the standard here is the standard for marriage and covenant. And so this will answer both things. Divorce. And what does God do? Does he actually give legislation of injustice or polygamy? Does he give legislation of injustice? No, in both those cases. Take polygamy for example. Was polygamy a part of God's normative practice for humanity. His call for humanity to be polygamous. No matter of fact, in the creative order, man, woman, single couple, and one flesh, right? And in Deuteronomy 17:17, God explicitly calls the Kings not to multiply wives. He actually specifically speaks against polygamy in Deuteronomy 17:17. That's in the law of God. God speaks against polygamy. Jesus goes back to the normative creative order and the the purpose of marriage. Man and woman leave. Mother, father. There's another unit there of single male, single female. And so Jesus is defining it as God. We know what it's, what it ought to be. However, isn't this powerful? Isn't this powerful? And this goes against their entire argument. When polygamy was being practiced by people in Israel, like the surrounding nations, what does God do? He says, all right, you made a public covenant, you made a promise, and you made it to create another family with another woman. So what does God do? And this is what it does in his law, Exodus, chapter 21, verse 10, he doesn't say, in that case of their sinfully getting into another covenant. He doesn't say, blow up and destroy all these families. What does he say? He says this. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. So you have provision, protection, and marital love that is required in the covenant. And that, by the way, runs through the New Testament. That's what Paul refers to. That's what Jesus is referring to. You can only divorce on biblical grounds. So my point is this is they'll say, hey, look, Jesus, he shows that God legislated for divorce. And that's not what God wanted, was divorce. And so you have a sinful institution. And God, you know, allowed for divorce, right, because of human sin. God is concerned for the victims. So what does he do? He says, you will not, if you enter into polygamy, you will not deprive your second wife of her provision, protection, and marital love. You will be faithful. You will not be unjust. Is that an instance of sinful legislation? No, that's an instance of legislation in a sinful enterprise that establishes justice and protection for the victim. And in the instance of Matthew 19, it's actually Jesus arguing against sinful regulations in divorce. Because in Matthew 19, Jesus is actually engaging with a very popular view of divorce legislation in the first century. And it's about Rabbi Hillel, the Hillelite marriage clause. Did you guys notice when you read Matthew 19, it says, can A man divorce his wife for. And here it is. Any cause, Any cause. Because there was legislation over divorce that says, hey, as long as you give a certificate of divorce, it could be for any reason. Just, she's not pretty anymore. I don't like the way she cooks. I'm tired of her. She argues too much. Whatever the case may be, you can divorce for any cause. And Jesus demonstrates that. He rejects that sinful legislation over divorce and says, no, it must only be on biblical grounds for the purposes of fornication. Which, by the way, we don't have time to go into this today. It's a very technical term that referred to also covenantal unfaithfulness. So Jesus is siding with Rabbi Shemai's school, the Shemaite view. It has to only be biblical. You can't do injustice in divorce. Jesus is saying, it must only be just. And what does God define as just? Here's an example. Provision, protection and marital love. That's what you have to give in the covenant of marriage. So is that God legislating injustice, which is what Doug and Toby are arguing for? That's the argument. Doug and Toby are arguing that in a sinful enterprise, you can actually insert sinful and unjust legislation and regulation. But in no example that they give when they bring this up is God inserting injustice into the sinful enterprise. He actually, for the slave issue, he's making sure that justice is given to all the slaves, no injustice. On the Blood Avenger, he's actually calling the Blood Avenger and the person who's guilty of the killing to make sure that there is a place where there are rules of justice and due process. So, yeah, sinful practice, there's a tribal way. They dealt with this before with a Blood Avenger. That was part of the history. And God goes into this and says, actually, no, if there's a killing, you need to flee to this city of refuge, where in that city of refuge, there will be due process, there will be evidence, there will be cross examination, and the Blood Avenger is not allowed to interrupt due process. And of course, Doug and Toby go, but yeah, but, yeah, but what if the guy's out, you know, just doing a jog around that city of Refuge one day and the Blood Avenger catches him. It's like, that's not the point of case law. The case law example is trying to make the point that you need to flee to the city of Refuge for due process, process. And the Blood Avenger needs to respect that. That's the point. So what is God doing. He's not arguing for injustice. He's not arguing for the Blood Avenger to be unjust. He's arguing for the Blood Avenger to actually establish the need for due process himself. So in every example that they give, you have no example of injustice being inserted into the sinful enterprise. You actually have a sinful enterprise that God is saying in the middle of that sinful enterprise, there must be justice. Like polygamy is a sticky one. That's a really sticky one. Y' all aren't supposed to be doing this. But if you're going to make all these covenants and you get all these brides and wives and you start having kids, you will not deprive your second wife of her protection provision and marital love. You will not do that. You will be just in those instances. And by the way, also, those are the standards for divorce. Paul says that as well in the New Testament. He says if a person is abandoned right then, then the spouse is free. If you're abandoned, then you're free. Well, wait a minute. There's no physical sex going on there, no adultery. How are you free? Because fornication is also a technical term for covenantal unfaithfulness. And how are you covenantally unfaithful to the marriage? By abandoning it, you have now neglected what, food, clothing, protection provision, and by the way, marital love, because you've disappeared. So you violated and abandoned the covenant. And Paul knows the law of God. He's like, if you get abandoned, that's a violation of Exodus 21, verse 10. You're free. So my point is, is that the examples that Doug and Toby give to support smash mouth incrementalism from Scripture are not actually cases where God is doing what they say we can do. Not at all. And so I hope this has been very helpful to everybody. Luke, do we have anything else we need to share?
