Debate Teacher Reacts: James White vs. Keith Giles

But okay, however the debate topic was worded, it's not about slavery though. What a meandering missed opportunity here.

Make Dr. White support himself in an area of scripture that you think he's weak on. Make him defend his contentions that you believe are weak and should be challenged, but that means that you gotta pay attention to his contentions in his opening statement.

Don't ask him to defend something that isn't even up for debate tonight though. It has been way too long since I've done a

Debate Teacher Reacts. Too long if you ask a lot of the Wise Disciple community, sorry about that. I have documented my recent struggles doing more of these, but the wait is over.

Today we are looking at James White vs Keith Giles. What is marriage? I'm ready to go.

I'm recently over a cold, I'm still drinking my lemon and honey tea, you can probably hear it in my voice. Look, this debate caught my eye right away because recently

Matt Wall squared off against Jill Rogan on this same issue, and I reacted to that as well, and my reaction was tepid.

I just think that this is an important issue for non -Christians and Christians to be wrestling with and thinking through, particularly right now, so today let's jump into this debate between a traditional

Christian and a progressive, I suppose, a progressive Christian, not sure where Keith Giles is on this.

Look, looks like the debate took place about a week ago, so it's fresh guys, it went down in Houston, Texas, thankfully it wasn't

Dallas because recently a lot of Dallas got shot down because of a huge ice storm. So it looks like the forecast in Houston, no ice, but 100 % chance of clash?

That actually hurt me physically to make that joke. Alright, that's enough out of me, let's just jump right in, shall we?

Since it's what everybody is thinking about toward the end of your last statements, you said that eunuchs are mentioned in the

Old Testament law. What specifically is said about them? I believe there's a passage about how they're not allowed to enter the temple,

I think it's in a passage in Leviticus, if I'm not mistaken. Thank you. It says something about how the lame or those who have mental illness or any other kind of birth defects or infirmities, or if they are eunuchs, are not allowed to enter the temple of God.

Okay, so real quick, let's get caught up to speed, Dr. White took first opening statement and he built his case based on this contention.

If the Bible is the Word of God, and Jesus is who he claimed to be, which is the Word of God, then we should pay attention to Jesus' teaching on marriage.

So far, so good. He then went to Matthew chapter 19. This is where Jesus is asked about proper grounds for divorce, and Jesus quotes from Genesis to talk about not only the definition, but also the spirit of marriage.

And then, Dr. White exegeted the passage, which I just have to say, I really appreciate

Dr. White when he kind of does this stuff. He is an excellent debater, but when he gets up to that debate stage, he's never not a pastor.

And that's awesome. Mr. Giles, in his opener, took a less linear approach. He said that we shouldn't read the

Bible according to a flat perspective, as he calls it, but according to a Jesus -centric perspective or view.

And so, when Jesus speaks in the Gospels, then we can finally understand what the Bible is saying, what it's talking about, particularly when

Jesus comments on the Old Testament, which Jesus tends to do. And I suppose the tactic here is meant to disqualify the

Old Testament writings on marriage and extrapolate a view of marriage based primarily on the things that Jesus said.

Mr. Giles then listed what he perceives as a lot of misunderstandings of various issues and terms that come from the

Bible, like husband, like wife, marriage, gender, all of that. One of the things that he said about gender, and this is why

Dr. White is asking the question, is that according to Jewish rabbis going all the way back to the Mishnah, to the

Talmud, to the classical Midrash, Jewish law codes, there are six different recognized genders.

One of those genders is intersex, and another is eunuch. So Dr. White starts off the question about eunuchs.

If there is a physical deformity of the male sex organ, this individual was not allowed in the congregation of Yahweh, is that correct?

I would say yes. I think that that's the way they understood what they were saying was that this person must have had a deformity.

Okay. And you are saying that that is a third gender? I'm saying that that is the way

Jewish teachers understood that. They understood that as not a male or a female, but something in between, a third gender.

What Jewish teachers? I can't name them by name, but I can show you the research that I've looked at from not just one single source, that there are a series…

But when do they write? What time period? There are old, going back into the

Midrash, there are references in the Torah, to these two eunuchs as being…

But the Torah is Moses, right? So this is extremely important. You have to have, if you're going to refer to authorities and appear to refer to evidences that can be cited, you have to have those citations ready to go.

You have to have them in hand and be ready, when asked, to cite them. Because you probably will, if you're dealing with somebody who knows what they're doing on the debate stage.

When you say, well, I don't know their names, when you get up during rebuttal and you say, well, you know, if you want my research, let me know afterward and I'll email it to you.

Nope. If you do these things, you've missed your moment. You absolutely should not refer to evidence that you are not willing to cite, especially when asked directly for them in cross -examination.

So good on Dr. White here. Yes, the Talmud. I'm sorry, misspoke. Okay, right. The Talmud. I think you might have misspoken earlier when you said…

Okay, I apologize. The Talmud. Okay, all right. I think that's an important clarification. Yes, thank you. Okay, so…

So these, the Mishnah, Gemara, and then the final Talmud, these are many, many, many centuries after Christ, right?

They were written down at that time, yes, but I believe the understanding from the Jewish people is that these were things that had been passed down for quite a long time before the written copies of what we have now.

But we have in the Mishnah material from 250 to 300 years after Christ.

Is there anything in there that substantiates any other view than a one -man, one -woman, gender -binary marriage relationship?

Not that I'm aware of, no. Okay, all right. In Matthew chapter 19,

I need to, am I correct in hearing from your comments that you don't agree that Jesus is establishing the normative reality of a gender -binary in creation in verse 4?

Is that true? Okay, so, this is classic

James White. I haven't seen a lot of James White debates, you probably have seen more than me, but I've seen enough to notice that this is his move.

And by the way, it's a good move as a debater. When you build your case, and in these kinds of debates, exegesis is necessary, it's involved, right?

And then your opponent challenges your exegesis in their rebuttal, then by all means pull your opponent onto your playing field.

Matthew 19 is James White's home field, so to speak, and he wants his opponent to play on his turf.

Because you can challenge contentions that your opponent makes, and you should in cross -examination, but when you get your opponent to talk about your contentions, now you're doing two things at the same time.

You're drawing out clash in an attempt to undermine your interlocutor's arguments against you, but then you're also what's called advancing your case.

Advancing your case simply means that you're focused on furthering the contentions that you began with in your opener.

James White's opener was all about Matthew 19, so he advances his case in bringing it up in cross -examination.

This is a really great move. I would say, what I'm saying is that Jesus is, he's doing that pattern of what he continually did.

You have heard it said, and then he would quote the scriptures, and then he would say sort of, but I say to you, so he's not negating it, he's agreeing with them, the

Sadducees. This is their perspective, yes, answering their question about specifically, can a man divorce a woman for any reason?

He quotes the Genesis passage. But I think just by virtue of the fact that in that same conversation, it's in that same context.

It's not another day, it's not the next day, it's not another chapter. It's in that same context of that question about, where he quotes

Genesis, the very virtue of the fact that Jesus would bring up what I believe many

Jewish people would have understood as being a reference to a third gender type, and honors it, and says that this is something he understands is probably beyond their ability to grasp.

By virtue of the fact that he brings that up, I think he is introducing some new idea. So, you see why this is a good move.

When your opponent has to find the words to defend their own interpretation of the text, and it's difficult to explain, as it appears from Mr.

Giles, it's a little bit difficult, right? This works in your favor. Why is that? Well, because the judge, in this case the audience, right, can see the struggle.

Struggle is real. The premise of the interchange in Matthew 19 is right in verse 3.

So, do me a favor, open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 19, because I feel, I get the sense that James White is going to park here for a little while, and just track along the discussion on stage to Matthew chapter 19.

It says there right in verse 3, I have my Bible open. It's right in verse 3. The Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?

Right? Mr. Giles is arguing that Jesus decided to respond to this question by saying, you know what, everybody?

This is a great opportunity for me to tell you about gender non -binary categories. But you just admitted that you don't have anything for hundreds of years after Jesus that would have indicated that that is how they would have understood what he said, right?

I would say that, again, what I quoted earlier, that there are multiple sources,

Jewish sources, rabbis, I believe before Jesus and after Jesus, not just after Jesus, that affirmed the six different gender types.

Who? I don't have their names, but if you want, I can read you the names of what they are in the

Hebrew. All right. I can do that. But you just said that in Matthew chapter 19, you said that Jesus is doing the same thing he did when he said, you have heard it said, but I say unto you.

Is that how you understand verse 4? I think it's following a similar pattern, yes, because I think

Jesus establishes a pattern in his teaching where quite often he will quote Moses, but then he will suggest something that's a radical—

But when he says, you have heard it said, he's referring to the rabbinic interpretation, is he not? He's quoting

Genesis. Not in Matthew 19. He doesn't say, you have heard it said.

He says, have you not read? Yes. That's completely different than you have heard it said. Right.

But it's the same kind of pattern. It's the same thing he does in the Sermon on the Mount when he says, you have heard it said, and I for an eye are tooth for a tooth.

That's not something they heard said. That is something that they would have read in the Old Testament scriptures.

So when later on in Matthew, dealing with the Sadducees, when

Jesus says, have you not read what God spoke to you? He's clearly referring there to reading scripture, not to simply rabbinic interpretation, right?

Yes. In the context of answering their very specific question about can a man divorce a woman for any reason?

No, that was later on in Matthew when he's talking to the Sadducees about the resurrection. It's different, completely different context.

Here in Matthew chapter 19, he's not saying you have heard it said, but I say to you, he says, have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?

So he is specifically quoting from scripture and holding them accountable to it and not changing anything.

How do you get a, how do you get your, how do you substantiate the assertion that what is clearly a citation of scriptural authority is being changed into,

I am changing this now? Where do you get that from? So Mr.

Giles does have a point here, okay? So what Dr. White is after is some kind of verbal indicator that provides evidence for Mr.

Giles' claim. The pattern that we find in the Sermon on the Mount is revealed by a verbal phrase, a verbal indicator.

You have heard it said, but I say to you. This repeated phrase reveals Jesus' intention to bring to light concepts that perhaps the

Israelites had not considered before. So the question is, that Dr. White is trying to,

I think, press Mr. Giles on is, where is the verbal indicator that Jesus is doing the same thing in Matthew 19 that he's doing in the

Sermon on the Mount? And so, if you stay in verse 4, then yes, Dr. White is correct, right?

Have you not read that he created them from the beginning, male and female? So it appears in verse 4,

Jesus is upholding the Old Testament teaching, but wait a sec, in verse 9, Jesus does say, and I say to you, whoever divorces his wife except for sexual morality and marries another commits adultery.

So now, Jesus is revealing something that the Israelites had not considered before with regard to marriage, which is why his disciples approached him afterward and responded the way that they did.

By the way, this doesn't help Mr. Giles' overall argument, okay? Because here, Jesus is not adding liberties and freedoms to the

Old Testament teaching. He's certainly not changing the subject to talk about gender non -binary categories.

He's actually restricting the reach of the understanding of the law. Why? Because he's revealing the spirit behind the law.

One man, one woman, one flesh for life. Well, again, in the same way that in the

Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus says, and he quotes an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth or things like that, or when he says, you know,

God sends rain on the just and the unjust, which is a direct contradiction of what Moses says in Deuteronomy, he follows that pattern.

When he's speaking specifically to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, he will quote their scriptures, but then he will offer a corrective or something to advance those ideas farther than they are comfortable.

He even says that in the text when he says, not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it is given.

For some are eunuchs because they're born that way. Others were made that way. Others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.

And the one who can accept this should accept it. So don't you, I'll ask you when it's my turn.

Yes. Don't you see that you are taking the initial answer that he gives, then the disciples respond to that and react to that.

And then Jesus is now addressing their question. But you're taking this later discussion and reading it back into the actual answer that Jesus gave.

And the result is we don't know what the answer he gave actually means. He's does it does it.

Can we agree that Jesus taught that the scriptures teach that God created man, male and female?

So notice, so this is really difficult, okay? And everybody has to be careful here because all of this happens in real time on stage in front of a lot of people.

The heart is beating, you know, everything is happening. We have to be very careful as interlocutors on stage, especially during cross -examination to not make speeches.

James White is technically explaining why Mr. Giles' interpretation is wrong. He really should try to ask a question.

When you say, well, don't you think that, and then you end up making some kind of an argument that belongs in rebuttal, no, just ask the questions.

When he's quoting that text, haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female? Yes, he's quoting that text.

Yes. Okay. To answer our specific question about can a man divorce a woman for any reason?

So it shouldn't shock us that he's quoting something that specifically is talking about a man and a woman. And so he answers with a creation mandate and then makes application verse five, right?

Yes, he does. And if the gender binary is not a part of the foundation of his answer, then verse five doesn't make any sense, does it?

Because it says, this reason a man shall leave his father and mother. There's no third gender.

There's no six genders. There's only two, right? Yeah. And if they had asked him about something like that, then that would have made sense.

But they specifically ask him, can a man divorce a woman for any reason? Right. I find it interesting that if Mr.

Giles' claims are true, and Jews always recognize six different genders, why didn't they ever ask

Jesus about that? If it was really something they were wrestling with themselves, and everybody knew about it the way we know about it today, why didn't they challenge

Jesus on that issue? Seems to me a lot of these scribes and chief priests and such, they were seeking to trip

Jesus up on various issues in order to get him into trouble, and that's literally what some of the Gospels say.

In the same way that they asked Jesus a question about taxation in Caesar, right? Why didn't they ask Jesus about non -binary folks?

He answers by quoting scriptures about a man and a woman. Why would we expect him in that answer?

But a few sentences later— Well, no, because, again, as I said in my opening, we're not—we shouldn't be looking at something to say, is it biblical?

We should be saying, is it Christ -like? Because Christ—Jesus does come, and one of the things that Jesus does is he reforms our ideas and our views of who

God is and what God is like. And so this is a situation where, yes, he begins by answering their question and saying, okay, yes, can a man divorce a woman for any reason?

Yes. And here's a verse about a man and a woman pleading, you know, pleading to father, mother, pleading to your wife. But then the answer, because he gives it the way he does, and now taking power out of the man's hands in the marriage relationship, now they are no longer able to oppress women in this way.

Is there anything about power or oppression in this text? It's the same answer. It's the same conversation.

The fact that he just turns to his disciples and addresses their shock at what he said. Jesus isn't only talking to one audience here.

He's talking to the Jewish leaders, but he also has his disciples right there with him. That's part of their being his disciples.

He's teaching them. Why would I be incorrect in saying that you're contradicting yourself because you said we go with Jesus, and yet now your interpretive lens for interpreting

Jesus in Matthew 19 is 21st century viewpoints of oppression and power.

So, I totally get what this question is trying to accomplish. What Dr. White is asking is,

I mean, basically, how are you not committing eisegesis of the text right now? You know? I mean, if the question of Matthew 19 is, is it lawful to divorce for any cause, and Jesus says the only cause of divorce should be sexual immorality because marriage was designed—this is a definition statement—marriage was designed by God from the beginning to be one man, one woman, one flesh for life, and then the disciples get upset afterwards, and they say, well, maybe it's better not to marry then, and then

Jesus says, well, some people won't be happy with being one man, one woman, one flesh for life, for those folks don't marry.

And then he goes on and says, there's all kinds of eunuchs. There are even eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. On what exegetical grounds,

Mr. Giles, can you claim that the disciples understood Jesus to be introducing non -binary categories there?

On what exegetical grounds from Matthew 19 can you claim that Jesus is saying anything else other than marriage is one woman, one man, one flesh for life?

For argument's sake, let's suppose Mr. Giles' support of same -sex marriage and gendered non -binaries is the correct view.

He has not shown any kind of support for his claim from this particular exchange in Matthew 19. Follow the exchange verse by verse.

It's not there. So this is not exegesis, this is exogymnastics.

It was oppression. You yourself even said it in your opening statement that the reason why when they took spoils of war was because these women would be left to fend for themselves and would probably starve to death and would have no man to take care of them, and so because that is a continuation of that system,

Jesus is correcting that it was an oppressive system against women. And so when

Jesus says that you can only divorce for the cause of adultery, he's putting power back in the hands of the woman, and it's evidenced by the fact that his own disciples decide why get married at all.

Let's go. Where would you say that the Bible instructs us that the

Bible is our ultimate authority? The Lord Jesus himself tells us that by his very example, and I gave you

Matthew chapter 22, have you not read what God spoke to you saying? That's repeated by Peter.

Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, the constant reference to the scriptures. In fact, for the apostle

Paul, graphe, grammata, these are all standard terminologies that everybody knew was in reference to the scriptures that were in the possession of Timothy and Paul, and Paul says they are theanoustos, they are

God -breathed, and that for Timothy to do the works of the man of God, he is referred to one thing, to the theanoustos scriptures.

So then how would you respond to the fact that Jesus says in Matthew 28 that our ultimate authority is him?

Well, because he's the one who gave us the scriptures. He's God -speaking, it's God's word, so it's his word. He's the one who created us, made us, sustains us, and so he cannot be separated from that which he has given to us.

I do believe fully in the deity of Christ, that Jesus Christ is the incarnate son of God, that he is

Yahweh in human flesh. I take it that this line of questioning is meant to lead to some kind of distinction by the

Bible proper and Jesus Christ, you know? The issue is, as Dr.

White just pointed out, that there is no distinction here, though, you know? Mr. Giles himself quoted Jesus earlier saying,

I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. That means there is no distinction between Jesus and God's word.

Jesus would never command us to do something that is out of step with the spirit of the Old Testament teachings. Okay. Do we agree on that?

I guess I'll ask that question later. Well, yes,

I do say that a little bit differently, so if you want, you can ask me that. Do you feel like there's ever any place where Jesus either contradicts the

Hebrew Scriptures, you probably wouldn't go that far, or modifies the

Hebrew Scriptures using this authority that he has because he is Christ, the

Son of God? No, obviously what Jesus is doing in the Sermon on the Mount is not modifying the Hebrew Scriptures.

He is rebuking the traditions of the elders that have been added to the

Scriptures and have become the lens through which the Scriptures have been viewed. So the prophets did the same thing over and over again.

God gave them the sacrificial system, and yet they then turned it into a business venture that no longer represented individuals who are repentant for sin.

So it's the same thing that Micah does, that Hosea does, and Jesus does it with the developments especially taking place with the

Pharisees during the intertestamental period. So far, so good, you know?

I mean, whether or not you're on one opponent's side in this debate, the criteria that should guide your listening in this debate is the

Bible. Who is accurately representing the Bible better than the other? That has to be your criteria in any debate on the

Scripture. You know, like if what is marriage comes from a definition given in the

Bible somewhere, then obviously whoever is representing the

Scripture correctly, better than the other guy, is the one doing the better job in the debate.

And James White so far is far superior in this regard. What about, again, in the

Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus makes this statement, he's giving essentially the reason for his statement of why you should turn the other cheek, bless those who curse you to go to those who hate you, and then he says, because God sends rain on the just and the unjust, do you not see that as a direct contradiction of what

Moses says in Deuteronomy about God sending rain only on the righteous but drying up and sending drought on the fields of the unrighteous?

No, there's two different contexts. One is talking about blessing and cursing, the other is talking about common grace.

When God causes it to rain, like he did today, it rained on my nice, pretty

Christian truck just like everyone's pagan truck. So that's just the context of that.

The blessings and cursings in Deuteronomy, that's a completely different context in the sense of,

I will bless your crops, I will curse those who rebel against me, etc., etc. So there's two different ways of recognizing

God's providence in those situations. That's right. And what

Jesus is probably alluding to when he says what he says are some of the Psalms, which talk about God's blessings being expressed in the rain that falls out of the sky and causes plants to grow up, rivers to gush forth, and all of that, and the end result is that man can eat and drink and his heart can be strengthened, right?

Deuteronomy 28 is very specifically about Israel's disobedience to the covenant that they made with God.

OK, so let me ask you this. Fifty years ago, we could be sitting in a church like this debating whether or not we as Christian pastors or ministers should marry a white person and a black person.

And in fact, 50 years ago, that is what Christians debated. And it was difficult for many

Christians who thought it was OK to do that to make an argument, because there's like 15 different passages in the scriptures that actually command

God's people not to marry people of other races. So here we are today arguing a different subject.

And you said in your opening that for us to change our minds on something as fundamental as this question of marriage, that we would need sort of like this overwhelming biblical support.

We'd have to do some exegesis. We'd have to find some proof that God didn't say this or, oh, my gosh, God said this other thing and we misunderstood it.

So how would you, in the time we have remaining, how would you, using only the

Bible, argue that slavery is wrong? OK, let me double check the topic for tonight.

What is marriage? Got it. What does this have to do with the topic of debate tonight, though? You know what

I mean? The topic of debate, which, by the way, again, I've said this in other videos, this is not a strong resolution by any stretch.

Whoever's putting on these debates, and I'm probably the only person in the room making this kind of comment, right?

But the resolution, what is marriage, is not strong. And I don't think that it's strong enough to be properly debated, in my opinion.

If we want to have solid debates that draw out excellent clash, make sure the resolutions are more clear than what is a thing.

But OK, however the debate topic was worded, it's not about slavery, though. What a meandering missed opportunity here.

Make Dr. White support himself in an area of Scripture that you think he's weak on. Make him defend his contentions that you believe are weak and should be challenged.

But that means that you've got to pay attention to his contentions in his opening statement. Don't ask him to defend something that isn't even up for debate tonight, though.

You've just taken precious time away from poking holes in Dr. White's contentions. You presented a bunch of different things there.

When you say we would have been arguing whether blacks and whites could marry. My first best friend, his father was the blackest man

I've ever seen. And his mom was albino white. So that's never been an issue for me. And I would have debated anybody.

And so would have my parents. It's all sorts of other folks like that. There is absolutely, my friend, no way to parallel the clarity of the

Bible's teaching on the nature of marriage with the abuse of scriptures in regards to something like that.

Because we clearly have the over and over again repeated statement in Scripture that there is neither male nor female.

Notice gender binary. Not there's four hundred and forty seven genders, but there's neither male nor female. There's neither

Jew nor Gentile bond nor free Scythian. That's a race. All are one in Christ Jesus.

And so you have the clarity of that statement, along with the clarity of the teaching of the entirety of the

Bible on the gender binary and marriage. And so comparing the two of them is simply an impossibility.

But then you switched from the illustration to slavery. And the argument there would be what kind of slavery are we talking about?

Because the scriptures allowed for slavery in war. And again, it was to preserve life.

And people don't understand that if you're if your husband and your culture, your city has been wiped out.

And you you you're not going to have any means of preserving life. So God has always been about preserving life, even in situations where you were living in a culture that could not produce the amount of food that would allow people to stay alive without those support structures.

So the issue is, are we talking about Roman slavery? You're talking about Greek slavery. We talk about man stealing.

Are we talking about those types of slavery? It's very clear what it says there. But slavery has existed throughout human history, continues to exist today.

And God's word actually addressed it and said, this is the only way that this can exist for the purpose of life.

And we're afraid to say that I'm not afraid to say that there I don't believe there's such thing as problem passages in this book.

There are just passages that I'm not willing to submit myself to. So is there a specific place where God tells them, the

Jewish people, the nation of Israel, to take slavery for the specific reason of preserving life?

Well, when you say for this specific reason, everyone would have known exactly why that was necessary.

Everybody would have known what would happen if you did not do that. They were allowed to do that. And but it was only within those certain confines.

That was a, you know, you can say, well, it doesn't say for the preserving of life. Well, everybody who was reading it would have understood exactly that because everybody understood what happened in war and what would take place once a city, like a city, state or something like that was destroyed.

But when the when the scriptures talk about slavery, they in like in Leviticus, it also makes

God seems to make a provision not just for, as you're saying, in the spoils of war for if you if it even is the case that it was for preserving of life.

I think that's that's debatable. But there was also the encouragement of permanent slavery.

In other words, like you wouldn't if you took someone as a slave who is another Jewish person, there was a time frame on that.

At a certain time, they could win their freedom. But if they were, they could remain right if they wanted to remain. They could. Yes, they all on the ear, et cetera.

But there was also provision for permanent slavery that that that person would be. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

You know, that's what Dr. White is thinking right now. Like, what does this have to do with the debate tonight?

A slave forever. And do you see that as something that would be is that moral?

Is that acceptable? Is that is that for the reason of saving their life? It still seems like it's more for the purpose of making that person a slave forever.

My Lord and Savior, who rose from the dead, said that God's law is good and just and right and that not a jot or tittle of it would fall.

And so I am going to trust his goodness in any situation where I do not have the information to answer any question about a specific example in history.

I can trust God to be good because he always has been. I mean, that's certainly something that you can say in response to this kind of questioning.

I I just wonder if that's the best thing that a Christian could say. I mean, why not just go ahead and point out the obvious, right?

That slavery is not as important as eternal damnation. It's just not.

And so if God decides to choose to redeem individuals for the purpose of saving them from the end result of their rejection of him, which is hell, and make that the primary focus, knowing that slavery will come to an end over time once folks stop rejecting their creator and living in the design that God intended for them originally in the garden.

Well, then what's what's the problem? The only problem with slavery is if you presuppose that the only life you live is here and now, because then when you're a slave and you live, whatever, 80, 90 years, you die a slave, your life was a total waste.

Except if there is an eternal life after this one, where there is true justice and no more death and weeping and sickness, etc.

And that eternal life dwarfs your 80 years on earth. What's the problem?

It's not a very emotionally persuasive thing to say, but I mean, I think James White is not somebody who shies away from saying emotionally difficult things.

I mean, there's something else you could say as a Christian. I will go ahead and ask the question that we made reference to earlier.

You said you would not use the terminology that I use in regards to the person of Christ.

Do you not hold to what would be considered to be a nice scene definition of Jesus Christ being the eternal son of God in the sense of a unique relationship to the father?

I don't recall saying that I had a different view. So I can see this play out like this, right? Objection, your honor.

Relevance, right? And Dr. White saying, well, you know, I'm seeking to determine Mr. Giles' credibility with regard to his unique interpretations of scripture.

I mean, perhaps he actually has uniquely interpreted himself outside the bounds of orthodoxy as it pertains to even

Jesus Christ. Hence the question about the Trinity. I'm sorry, that just, that played out of my head. Thanks for watching.

Viewpoint on Jesus with you. I said, I approach the scriptures differently.

So no, I wouldn't have a problem affirming the Nicene Creed or the

Apostles Creed. So Jesus is Yahweh incarnate? Yes. Okay, that was, would you say that he has a unique authority that no other religious leader,

Buddha or any of the Zoroastrians or anyone else would possess?

As far as I'm concerned, yes. Okay, as far as you're concerned? Well, you're asking me, so I'm telling you what

I believe, yes. Okay, all right. But if he truly is the incarnate one, our opinion of it doesn't change.

What I'm saying is that, yeah, I believe that and I would affirm that. But obviously not everyone does. Okay, when we go back to, we were trying to work our way through the issue.

And I was basically trying to say to you that in Matthew chapter 19, the end of Jesus' answer is verse 6.

Is that not correct? When he says, so they are no longer two, but one flesh.

What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. Is that an answer that remains valid and binding upon everyone today?

Or just Christians? Well, that's kind of maybe the nuance of what we're trying to discuss here tonight.

Obviously, if you're not a Christian, then those scriptures, those words don't have the same kind of authority for you.

I don't agree, though, that that's the end of the question. Because he answers in verses 4 and 5 and 6.

Then they ask a follow -up question. Why did Moses give the command to give his wife a certificate of divorce to send her away?

And he answers, he clarifies that. And then the conversation continues.

That is not the end of the conversation. So we're multiple questions down the road now. But the end of his, when he stops speaking, he says, so they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Is marriage numerically limited to two? No, I don't agree that that is what's being asked of Jesus in this passage.

He's not being asked, they don't say, please define... So, this is a great moment that I just want to highlight, because this happens all the time.

And it would be great if we all could recognize this when this happens to us, okay? Dr. White is asking a specific question about Jesus' answer.

Jesus' answer has very specific content to it that contains the definition of marriage as given to us in Genesis.

By the way, at this point, I'm not saying anything controversial. Everyone recognizes that God defines marriage in Genesis 2.

Why? Because it literally says, this is why people get married. Because the woman came from the man's flesh.

By the way, you realize that, right? Marriage, particularly the marital relationship, is a reflection of man and woman's relationship in their own creation.

Woman was created out of man's flesh. And so, in marriage, the two flesh become one again.

This is a definition of what marriage is, and what it is meant to be. One man, one woman, one flesh, for life.

But that's not how Mr. Giles is answering the question, okay? Again, Dr. White is asking about Jesus' answer.

Mr. Giles is responding by saying, well, that's not what Jesus was asked. Dr. White is not asking about what

Jesus was asked. He's asking about Jesus' answer. ...marriage for us, and then he says, oh, well, let me tell you, marriage is between a man and a woman.

There is a conditional thing they're asking about marriage between a man and a woman, and could that relationship between a man and a woman end in divorce for any reason?

And then, in reaction to that, he answers that question. But Jesus never... So, Mr.

Giles is already off on the wrong foot here. He somehow seems to think that the question posed to Jesus somehow alters the nature of Jesus' answer.

Spoiler alert, it doesn't. Jesus is asked about divorce. Jesus then gives the definition of marriage.

Why does he do that? The definition of marriage answers the divorce question. It's for life, y 'all.

And then, marriage bros get mad, right, in the first century, because they don't like that kind of finality. And so then, they approach

Jesus. Jesus says, well, marriage isn't for everyone. It's only for those who can hear and obey my answer.

You know, eunuchs don't get married. So... Now, what

I've done is literally, line by line, how the conversation tracks and why it went that way.

Mr. Giles cannot go line by line and get to his interpretation of the conversation.

He can't do it. So first, he has to suggest somehow, Jesus' answer is not meant to be a definition of marriage.

And the way that he does that is by saying, well, you know, they weren't asking for a definition of marriage.

It doesn't matter what they were asking! It doesn't matter! What matters is that the answer to their question comes out of the definition of marriage.

He never even says divorce, does he? They do. It's the question that they're asking.

And his answer is to go back to creation. Right. And in the creation narrative, he says, so they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Is that the creation standard for mankind for all time?

I would say it's the standard for men and women in a marriage between a man and a woman.

If you ask me how to make orange juice, and I mention specifically water and orange juice,

I'm answering your question, and I'm talking about the ingredients of orange juice, which is water and orange juice.

Maybe some sugar. But it's a specific answer to a very specific question about what happens at the end of a marriage between a man and a woman.

And yet, he doesn't talk about divorce. Instead, he talks about, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.

The two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.

The last line refers to not man being able to separate, but everything that came before that is fundamental creation ordinance.

Are you saying it's not creation ordinance? That there would be people for whom it is not true that they are no longer two, but one flesh?

Do you believe that two men can become one flesh? Not in the same sense that it's being talked about here.

But again, I think there is a context, going back to Genesis, of why, what is the context of that scripture?

It's the, you know, we only have two people, Adam and Eve, that have just been created. And then they are given this command to be fruitful and multiply.

And it's in that context that the man and the woman would, the man would cleave to his wife, and they would bear children, and they would, you know, multiply and subdue the earth.

I mean, let's fast forward. We're like 7 .4 billion people. We did it. Good job.

I think we accomplished our goal. But that was where it began. And to accomplish that command, that goal to be fruitful and multiply, that's why a man and a woman would become one flesh.

There was a purpose behind that statement and that command. Yeah, but the purpose has also to do with reflecting how human beings were created.

Again, marriage is connected in a relational sense to creation itself. Why? Because the woman's flesh came out of the man, and the one flesh became two fleshes in creation.

That's how God created us, male and female. That's what the Bible says. And so marriage is a return to the one fleshness of male and female.

It harkens back to creation because female came out of the flesh of male in the first place. So this dynamic of one becoming two in creation, two becoming one in marriage, it's connected.

That's why, and I think Mr. Giles pointed this out in his own opening, the words for man and woman and husband and wife are the same words in Hebrew.

Mr. Giles is way out in the interpretive weeds here. I mean, I'll even concede for the sake of discussion, maybe he's correct, okay?

Well, then he needs to make his case and provide sufficient exegetical support for his view. But that's not what he's doing.

All he's doing is he's reiterating his claims. And this is why Dr. White has the advantage.

You said at the end of your opening statement, well, I haven't had actually a definition from you of what marriage is.

I've certainly given mine. What is your definition of marriage? I guess my definition take it with a grain of salt.

I guess for me, my definition of marriage would be I'll take it with biblical support. If you've got like one or two passages handy,

I'll take that. A loving relationship between two people who provide companionship to one another who are helpers to one another.

And in the case of male and female relationship, that could include bearing children.

But there are many people who are married male and female that do not and cannot bear children.

So I wouldn't see the procreation aspect of the marriage relationship as being something that is necessary even in heterosexual relationships.

But you said people. So your definition would include homosexual marriage? Yes. Same sex marriage.

Okay. Is there anything in the Old Testament that would give that definition? No. As I also said in my opening, the question, is it biblical?

I believe leads us down the wrong path. I again am pointing us to again back to Matthew 19 where Jesus in a conversation about marriage between a man and a woman introduces this idea of a third type of gender, acknowledges that it's something that not everyone can accept especially at that time in history.

But ends by saying that those who can accept this should accept it. I would absolutely consider and take to heart the things that Mr.

Giles is saying right now about Jesus in Matthew 19 if he could ever demonstrate that he understands the focus and flow of the conversation in the passage and then properly elucidate those things to the rest of the audience.

But he hasn't done that all evening, friends. He has reverse engineered his understanding into the conversation in order to get to the interpretation that he wants.

By the way, there are statements of Jesus that are difficult to understand and that are open to interpretation.

Biblical scholars offer their best inferences but there is no uniform agreement about a couple of difficult statements that Jesus has made in the

Gospels. This Q &A between Jesus and the Pharisees in Matthew 19 ain't one of them. He's still defining marriage two questions down?

I think he's asking us to do what he says at the beginning of the

Sermon on the Mount which is metanoia in the Greek which is quite often translated as repent. But that word metanoia doesn't mean feel sorry for your sins it means think differently.

It means change of direction, right? Yes. Yes, but not just in your behaviors but in the ways that you think.

So is there anything else in Jesus' teaching where you actually believe he is defining marriage that would include two men, two women?

Anywhere else? Other than this passage, no. I think he's simply planting the seed because as he says when he makes the statement he knows that this is something that they are

I mean they can barely handle the idea that the man can only divorce the woman for the cause of adultery which freaks out even his own disciples.

So to make this next suggestion he carefully suggests hey there's something else beyond what you're currently willing to receive

And when did that seed grow and bear fruit? Is it in Paul? Peter?

James? Luke? Anybody? Yeah, well I think it took a very long time for us to recognize

Yeah, I think it took a very long time and is still taking a very long time in the same way it has taken it took a very long time for Christians to settle the question of slavery.

Because from the scriptures it's very difficult to use the scriptures to make a case that slavery is a sin and we shouldn't take slaves.

I disagree hardly, but when the apostle

Paul says that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of heaven he just missed the seed?

Well, the word homosexual didn't appear in any English translation of the Bible until 1946 But we all know what ars in equites means

Yes, it means it's a reference to temple prostitution, going back, yes it is

And that's, by the way look that up, that's Matthew Henry that's, I mean, many other many even conservative

Christians have always translated those two words, so there's two words that have been translated as homosexual in your

English translations Malakoi and Arsinokotai Again, let's keep in mind that there were 15 other words in the

Greek that referred to different types of same -sex relationships that would be closer to what we would consider to be a homosexual relationship, and yet Paul has to reach back and practically invent a word,

Arsinokotai to refer to something, and whatever he's referring to, what we know is it wasn't one of those other 15 words that were specifically about something we would call homosexuality

Do I need to say something here that I haven't already said? I mean, you know

I don't know, I mean, again is this the topic for this evening? No The Apostle Paul, being a

Jew, was utilizing the Greek to continue speaking as a Jew In the

Old Testament, same -sex relationships are described as activities men who lie with men.

There is no distinction between monogamous loving, non -temple prostitution -style same -sex couples and those prostitution types.

Couples. There is no distinction in the Bible at all like that The word Arsinokotai is a combination of two words in the

Greek. Arsino, which means male, and kotai, which means bed. It literally means male bed.

And so the question becomes, what is Paul referring to there? Well, look at the passage, right? Context is key.

He's not saying that no two males should take a nap side -by -side Dad and son can take a nap on a bed side -by -side.

No. He's referring to males engaging in sexual activity with other males. That was never confusing until five minutes ago when

LGBTQ apologists started writing books about this. Do you believe that Jesus was pro -family?

Pro -family? Yes He created the...

He's the one doing the creation in Genesis 2, so yes Okay I guess

I'm speaking more specifically about his teachings in the New Testament and the Gospels. Well, I see a consistency

Do... And would you... Could you also make a case that Paul is pro -family? Very much so. Okay So then what do you do when

Paul says things like he wishes everybody would be like him and be celibate and not get married, that the only reason really that he recommends getting married is if you're burning with lust almost as if...

If you want to kill your passion get married, that'll do it Because it's... Again, I see

Jesus introducing at least the possibility of these eunuchs within the context of the kingdom

I see Paul being someone who actually suggests that the followers of Christ not get married and remain celibate as he was.

So I'm... Where do you see Paul being pro -family? Well look at Ephesians chapter 5

I made reference to it You have husbands, wives, children You have

Christ being Christ and his bride the church You have families there when he defines the elders and the deacons.

He talks about the fact they should be husbands of one wife children under control It's just a given all the way through when you...

When you again when you allow the scriptures to be the scriptures and to be harmonious with one another, then you recognize this consistency and then very clearly when the apostle goes through the ten commandments, one of the things that he identifies when he talks about the sexual sins when he goes to...

You shall not commit adultery is he specifically refers to all different forms of fornication, pornia and he does draw from the

Old Testament text and gives us a word that means what men do with men in bed.

It's derived from Leviticus chapter 20 and Leviticus chapter 18. There's no question about this lexicographically, from Hebrew or from Greek There is just absolutely no question about it and that's why

I have challenged all the creators of the 1946 movie to debate and they won't do it because they will lose badly

I would love to see that debate Oh, I would too. I know those guys, I'll see if I can set it up. Good, set it up.

You'll host And I'll react I think Michael Brown and Bob Gagnon would want to get in on that too

How much time do I have? Seven minutes and nine seconds Alright, so let me ask you this

You're distracted So, remember one of the tactics in drawing out clash in cross -examination is to ask leading questions to poke holes in your interlocutor's contentions from their opener

You should be focused on those contentions or things that you heard that came out in the course of the debate from your opponent and one of the ways of asking these kinds of leading questions is to set a garden path wherein you ask what appear to be a series of innocuous questions that are followed up with some kind of a humdinger of a question that pins your opponent up against a figurative wall

I imagine that Mr. Giles is attempting to do this I just, I don't know where this is going

I don't see where this is leading I'm looking for the knockout, let's see what happens.

Do you see any places throughout the scriptures where God gave a specific command about something and then later made an exception to that command

I'm not sure what you mean by exception I mean, Christian theologians down through the ages have recognized that when you look at God's law, for example, you have aspects of the ceremonial law that have been completely done away with and therefore are finished in Christ so on and so forth but the law as a moral command is not what is done away with in the old covenant you made that statement in your opening and I didn't get around to refutation of it but when

Hebrews 8 is talking about the old passing away, it's not talking about it's impossible for that to be the

Old Testament law in its morality because Paul then turns around and utilizes those very same commandments when he says to the

Corinthians how they are to behave and how they are to behave sexually and he uses examples over and over again, the writer of the

Hebrews does the same thing I think we have to be very careful I think we would really do that very differently in our understanding of how that works

So, where is this going? Is this meant to further advance Mr. Giles' argument that the Bible is not meant to be properly understood nor followed to the letter which by the way, if that's his argument it came across pretty muddled in his opening and rebuttal if you like you should check out the entire debate

I should have said that a long sooner, the link is below for that take a look at it because the opening statement and the rebuttals they don't give us a clear, concise position for Mr.

Giles so I'm leaning forward I'm listening, I'm waiting for this kind of knockout punch still not seeing it but let's see what happens

So, for example, in 2 Corinthians 3 and verse 7 Paul gives us, he does this twice actually, he also does something very similar in Galatians 4 he provides pretty stark contrast between the

Old Covenant and the New Covenant and do you not see that as Paul critiquing the

Old Covenant in favor of a New Covenant kingdom perspective well when

Paul is talking about the Old Covenant he is almost always dealing with the Judaizers who are telling people that to become a

Christian you have to enter into the Old Covenant before you can have faith in Christ and enter into the kingdom of God and he's saying no, that would create a division that is completely against everything that he teaches, and so in Galatians in Romans over and over again he's emphasizing the fact that that old way has been done away with he then turns around and quotes from the moral content of God's law over and over and over again as normative for the

Christian congregation, so he's making a clear distinction between the two and I'm assuming the reason we're talking about this right now is because it is that Old Testament law that is so clear in regards to the gender binary and the nature of marriage well, so when

Paul again, it's just that the language that Paul uses going to 2

Corinthians 3 where, what verse? 2 Corinthians 3 starting verse 7 okay letters engraved on stone yes, which is the

Ten Commandments I mean, what other ordinances do we have engraved on stone other than the Ten Commandments?

Right, and if they are viewed as he lays it out in Romans chapter 2, as we possess these things, therefore we're right with God.

What does he say in Romans chapter 2? No, you possess them, and that only increases your guilt before God. His whole argument in Romans 1 and 2 is, hey, look at the

Gentiles, and Jews are going, yeah, yeah, go get them, Paul. Then he turns around in Romans chapter 2 and says, yeah, well, you possess the law, and you don't keep it.

And therefore, in Romans chapter 3, that's why all have sinned, Jew and Gentile. There can be only one

Christian church, because there is only one way of righteousness before God, that's the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter who it's for.

So, yes, if you are claiming that I know the Ten Commandments, therefore that's my get -into -heaven -free card or be -right -with -God -free card, then yes, he's saying, no.

But then he turns around and quotes from that material as having continuing authority in the

Christian church over and over again in regards to morality and ethics. Okay.

We're dangerously close to agreeing on something, so I want to... So when you read... It seems like a great guy.

This is not a backyard barbecue discussion, though. This is the debate stage.

Like, can we just get to the knockout already? I mean, every moment, every second counts on that stage, and cross -examination especially.

Let me just ask the first question. So are you aware of, specifically in the Book of Romans, of Paul employing an argumentation technique called prosopopia?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Okay. So let me briefly explain it, and then I'm going to ask you a question on that.

Prosopopia sounds like a Mexican dessert. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

That's about as dad as these jokes get today. All right. Prosopopia. It's when an imaginary person speaks.

When an author puts words into an object or an imaginary person in order to communicate something.

It's not an argument technique. It's a literary device, which is the only reason I know about it, because I used to teach literature.

So for example, when a politician says at a stump speech, you know, last week I met

Lisa Whitaker in Iowa, and she said that she's concerned about the government not doing anything about rising gas prices, right?

And then later on we find out that Lisa Whitaker doesn't actually exist, and then the politician gets busted on the media for lying, and then he says, oh, no, no, no, no, it's prosopopia!

Right? I used the character of Lisa to talk about my talking points, inflation and all that.

By the way, this kind of stuff happens in politics, y 'all. You gotta look it up. It's crazy. So there was a first century argumentation device called prosopopia.

Paul uses it in Romans. Some say he might also be using it in 1 Corinthians. But it was a common argumentation device where in the letter or in the document it's sort of a mock debate between you and someone you disagree with, right?

So that throughout Romans, that's what Paul is doing. He's quoting—

Yes, exactly. It's a back and forth conversation. Yeah, well, but we don't—that's not— we don't refer to it as prosopopia.

That's diatribe. That's what we call it. I mean, I don't want to be picky here. I'll just be quiet. Shut up, Nate, and just keep going.

So I asked you the question because in the way you answered the question about the progression of saying, hey, look at all these awful idol -worshipping pagans.

Aren't they disgusting? Kind of stirring up his audience like, oh my gosh, yes, we hate these people. And then he turns in chapter 2 and says, but you are just as guilty because you know the law.

In fact, you're more guilty because you know it and they don't, right? So it's that kind of idea. And that continues all the way through to Romans 11.

So perhaps it's the wrong question for this debate. But if when you read

Romans through that lens of prosopopia, it appears that the point

Paul makes kind of culminates at the end of Romans 11, and it probably is the wrong question.

Well, that's because chapter 12 begins the— the practical application of given what

God has done in Christ Jesus, therefore, this is how we should live. Yeah. Oh, so— I have like a minute left.

So let me ask you this then. Oh my gosh. Do— Okay, all right. Okay, okay.

Let me compliment Mr. Giles here. He, again, seems to be a nice man. He's careful, he's respectful, and he thinks through his words before speaking.

He's, you know, he came prepared, he's got his notes. All of these things are pluses, right? But that train of thought just cost him precious time in cross -examination.

He obviously did not have a plan stepping into those questions, and he lost the thread entirely.

And for him, this train has already derailed. I mean, I can't see how, at this point, this late in the game, he can pull out of this mess in one minute, right?

Dr. White has had the clear advantage in these exchanges the entire time in cross -examination.

Would you agree that when Paul and Jesus quote the Old Testament scriptures, they quite often do so in a creative way?

And what I mean is rather than quote the entire passage, they'll leave out the parts about judgment or wrath.

Paul, in one example, quotes an Old Testament passage specifically about how God intends to destroy the

Gentiles but turns it around as a blessing for the Gentiles. You'd have to give me a specific text.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. So, that's my question. I feel that you made a comment about how

Jesus quotes the Old Testament, and Paul quotes the Old Testament. So, what

I would say— Ehhhhhhhhh. These are not questions.

These are not questions, Mr. Giles. Statements are for closing. Coffee's for closers only.

Alright, alright. I got it. I got it. I got it. I got it. Look, this debate wasn't very much to write home about.

I mean, in any debate, particularly between two people within the church— Okay, let me stop. Let me back that up.

Let me think of how to say this better. Particularly between two people who should be brothers in Christ trying to argue based on the word of God, there should just be a lot more clash here.

The reason why there was not is because from the beginning, Dr. White came out with clear contentions.

He made his case largely from exegeting Matthew chapter 19, the definition of marriage, Jesus recalling that in Genesis when asked about divorce.

Mr. Giles did not have clear, cohesive contentions. Therefore, his case was muddled from the very beginning.

He didn't even clearly, as far as I can remember, give his own definition of marriage. Dr. White had to ask him in cross -examination, what is your definition of marriage?

And so, when pressed in cross -examination, Mr. Giles tried to walk through Matthew 19, but he couldn't rise above merely making claims of the text, of reiterating his claims over and over of what the text is actually saying.

He was never able to give a clear representation of the focus and the flow of the conversation in Matthew chapter 19.

He couldn't even define marriage utilizing Scripture as a basis. I mean, these are things he should have been able to do as an interlocutor, and he just fell short.

Dr. White is the clear winner of this debate in my opinion. Now, it's your turn to tell me.

Who do you think won the debate, Dr. White or Mr. Giles? If you think Mr. Giles, let me know why.

I'd love to hear why. Put that all down in the comments below. As always,

I hope that this reaction blessed you, and that you are able to understand a bit more clearly about, you know, what's going on behind the scenes with regard to debates of this type.

Hey, if there is a particular debate you would like me to react to, let me know in the comments as well. I'm gonna go away now and drink some more honey tea, and I'll be ready for another video real soon, but in the meantime,