Hope for the Downtrodden

Much of what Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount was directed towards individuals who felt persecuted and powerless. That is, Jesus delivered a message of hope for many people who had none. This is a very encouraging message because Jesus realized that his Father chooses people who are disadvantaged by worldly standards. By disadvantaged, we mean people who do not exactly fit the ideas of worldly power and success. This is especially true in Western civilizations. The definition of success by Western standards is often spiritually unhealthy. We may feel like a failure when we have not succeeded by some of these standards. But many of these standards are material, competitive, greedy, selfish and violent. So, if we are feeling downtrodden or helpless, perhaps we need to change our perspective. We should read the Sermon on the Mount. We may get a different idea about what God considers to be important.

The fact is, even Jesus was downtrodden. This is why Jesus was so loved. By worldly standards, he was never on “top.” He could have been. But he made a determined effort not to be. He did not always do what he had the power to do. He said “no” to the many temptations offered by Satan. We can learn a lot by just looking at what he refused.

During the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, Satan offered Jesus what might be considered the world. But Jesus declined every single offer. Whereas, the philosophy of this world is to take advantage of every offer that comes along, Jesus saw all these temptations as requests for submission from the Devil. But many people will follow after Satan instead of answering Satan like Jesus did with “it is written.” Satan offered Jesus tremendous opportunities because Satan recognized that Jesus was an extremely powerful adversary. Look at the kinds of offers Satan made! For a little worship, Satan promised him “all the kingdoms of the world.” This was no small offer. Many powerful people today would love to have world domination. However, Jesus declined. Yet we are told that Jesus wants to come back and to violently dominate the world. But he has already refused that course, why would he follow it now? We know Judgement Day is coming. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) But this is not the time when Jesus will be establishing his kingdom. It will be “the end” of his rule instead of “the beginning.” As 1 Corinthians 15:24 proclaims: “Then cometh the end” (speaking about the end of his rule).

We notice that in the temptation of Jesus, Satan distorted the scriptures. As always, he used subterfuge. We have witnessed such distortions many times. For example, we just got back from West Virginia where some churches handle copperheads, rattlesnakes and perhaps other deadly serpents in their worship services. They are tempting fate and playing games with the Devil; but they see snake handling as a legitimate form of worship. Some of them actually die. Even a few deaths are ample evidence of their folly, but they quote from such passages as Mark 16:17-18 to justify their practice. But how did Jesus see such scriptural perversions? Well, in his temptation, Jesus said to Satan: “It is written again, You shall not tempt the Lord your God.” Although Satan quoted scripture, Jesus cited a scripture that was much more appropriate. No doubt it was possible for Jesus to cast himself down from the pinnacle of the temple (or the south end of the high retaining wall surrounding the temple mount) without harm. But Jesus appealed to a much higher objective. Therefore, we learn by his temptation that the motives behind our actions are very important. At other times, Jesus willingly performed beneficial miracles to build faith and assist the afflicted. But temptations from Satan were very different. Jesus realized that Satan was endeavoring to destroy him. He recognized the source and the objective of Satan's requests. Since Satan intends nothing good for any of us, we would all do well to recognize the source and the objective of all his suggestions.

After Jesus successfully opposed all these supposed “opportunities” (Matthew 4), he gave what is called his spectacular “Sermon on the Mount.” In the first part, he gave hope to those who felt hopeless. Notice, these people that he describes as “blessed” were not evil people. Evil people may feel persecuted and hopeless (rightly so). In the case of evil people, repentance is a good thing. But these people were without hope because they were persecuted. Therefore, Jesus offered them hope. He offers all of us the same hope today. He can transform all of our obstacles into great blessings. We can all be blessed by these attitudes.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3) The anticipation of a “coming kingdom” was tremendous. It was so great that Matthew 11:12 proclaims: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” They were wrongly trying to take the kingdom (hence the phrase “the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence”). John the Baptist had built up so much anticipation in people for an imminent kingdom that the violent were ready to take it by any means. Many believed that subtle, haughty, evil, violent and combative people were necessary to bring it about. (Machiavellianism anyone? Have we noticed that after thousands of years of Machiavellianism, man is no closer to world peace than he has ever been?) Many were Zealots. When Jesus fed the multitudes with five barley loaves and two small fishes, they were ready to use force to make him a king. (John 6:15) Jesus refused. He never considered the use of violence to obtain any of his objectives.(Some cite his throwing out of the money changers from the temple. But even here he used his moral and spiritual authority. He overturned the tables of the money changers. He did not have to touch anyone. Others cite his anger at this fig tree because he cursed it and it dried up. Perhaps they may have never considered that this fig tree symbolized the future of a people that had failed to accept him and to bear fruit?) On one occasion, Jesus invited his disciples to bring along a couple of swords (merely as tokens of violence) to show them the place of violence in his kingdom. Notice what Jesus said to Peter when they came for him in the garden. “And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:51-53) With twelve legions of angels at his disposal, Jesus could have easily conquered the entire world with deadly force. But, as we have already seen in his temptation, that was never his objective. (Acts 7:49, Isaiah 66:1 )

How were the poor in spirit to obtain a heavenly kingdom? To the violent, the poor in spirit are simply useless and powerless. They are not a factor. But Jesus told them they were powerful. Jesus assured the poor in spirit that they were the ones (not the haughty and the violent) who would ultimately possess the heavenly kingdom. Even if they felt powerless, with the help of God, it would be theirs. This was very “good news.” Therefore, there was no need for them to be like Herod, the Zealots or any of the others who thought violence was the answer.

The fact is, attitudes are much more permanent and powerful than military might. “He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.” (Proverbs 16:32) Self control is much more powerful than any robotic killing machine that man has ever devised. Furthermore, humility of spirit (like Jesus had) is beneficial to man's ultimate spiritual and eternal welfare. As Zechariah was instructed to say to Zerubbabel (the grandson of the once cursed Jehoiachin by which the Jews question the genealogy of Jesus because his children had been cursed): “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord Almighty.” (Zechariah 4:6) This was a humble and a spiritual work. God does not need to use physical force to bring about a spiritual or heavenly kingdom. Instead God uses spiritual force. Physical force and anger are counter productive to spiritual objectives. (James 1:20)

We wish that many in the “religious right” would notice this “poor in spirit” condition. Trying to establish a heavenly kingdom on earth by physical violence is counter to this necessary attitude. There are several things wrong with military objectives designed to the establish a heavenly kingdom on earth. (Note: In this article we are not lamenting or denying the legitimate existence of the nation of Israel. We are personally happy that Israel exists. It may be the will of God. We are just denying the need to use force or to have a spiritual reign on the temple mount in Jerusalem which some have equated with the “heavenly kingdom” or the “new Jerusalem.”) First, Jesus has already established a “spiritual” or heavenly kingdom. (Acts 2ff.) Therefore, he does not need to come back and establish another earthly or “physical” kingdom on the temple mount (which is part of his footstool). Such an effort would blaspheme the spiritual effort he made in the first place. It mocks his death on the cross. Second, Jesus did not use force, or have his disciples to use force, in establishing his spiritual kingdom. In our estimation, a military endeavor to establish a new temple in Jerusalem would nullify the “poor in spirit” cause and effect relationship. The use of force by the servants of God is certainly not a legitimate way to exhibit a humble attitude; and, therefore, obtain a heavenly kingdom.

We are well aware of some claims that the new kingdom has not yet come because there is no evidence for it. They say that the establishment of a heavenly kingdom (or peace on earth) has been a total failure. For example, they make a literal interpretation of Isaiah 11:6 (“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”) Some rabbis will usually say: “When I can look out my window and see a literal transformation of nature, then I will know the kingdom of heaven is really here. I will be able to see it.” But we interpret Isaiah 11:6 as a spiritual regeneration. For example, those who have been perhaps as ferocious as a lion (wicked) will be able to change their nature (repent) so that they can lie down with the lamb (good people). This passage is not a literal or a physical reality that can be observed by looking out the window. It is a spiritual regeneration. It is an individual regeneration. Only a small “remnant” of people will ever be successfully regenerated. (Matthew 22:14)

Another aspect of being “poor in spirit” is the exhibition of a receptive attitude. Even John the Baptist, who noticed the moral characteristics of the Pharisees, did not consider them to be very good candidates for the coming kingdom. As spiritual leaders, they were really not as Godly as they thought they were. (Luke 18:11) Perhaps that is why John exclaimed when he saw them coming to his baptism:  “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” (Matthew 3:7-10) Comparing people to a subtle and a deadly brood of vipers is certainly not a very good recommendation. John did not express very much hope. Remember the question above. Machiavellianism anyone?

Jesus did not express very much hope for the Pharisees either. Perhaps that is why he spent most of his effort and his time with the common people. In fact, after Jesus had rebuked the Pharisees for the “tradition of the elders”, he advised his disciples: “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” (Matthew 15:14) It was almost like Jesus was saying: “They are so hopeless. Don't spend too much time on them.” We are sure that Jesus had not completely written them off; because there were many good people among them. Let us not forget the apostle Paul. But Jesus seemed to be telling his disciples that they would be much more productive elsewhere. This is really a sad commentary.

We remember the lamentation of Paul: “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 9:1-5) It is truly a shame that more of his people were not “poor in spirit.”

We see many in Israel today, surrounded by all of their enemies, hoping for salvation from heaven. The whole world is wondering. Many (along with some in America) are vainly trusting in military superiority and the idea that the Jews are the “children of Abraham.” Even the US is engaged with them in their struggle to bring in the “kingdom of heaven.” They believe that war is the solution. Oh that they would all hear the words of Jesus to Zacchaeus. “This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:9-10) There is always hope for the downtrodden! Theirs could also be the kingdom of heaven.

Tradition of the Elders

In Matthew 15 and Mark 7 the scribes and the Pharisees from Jerusalem asked Jesus a very significant question. “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” (Matthew 15:2, Mark 7:5) This question reveals a very central difference between Jesus and the Pharisees. Jesus did not always keep the “Oral Traditions” which evolved into the Mishnah, the Gemara and the Talmud.

The “tradition of the elders” differed from the Law of Moses. For example, Mark leads into the question the Pharisees asked Jesus by explaining: “For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.” (Mark 7:3-4) They “received” (orally) and maintained special purity laws that went far beyond the Law of Moses.

The “tradition of the elders” was a body of knowledge the Pharisees invented. It gave rabbis unquestioned authority. They were concerned about building what they considered to be a “fence” around the Law. Very famous rabbis, such as Hillel and Shammai, emerged because of this fence. Building this fence required diligent study and hard work. But on the positive side, at least for Rabbinical Judaism, it was a very strong cohesive force. It contributed to a strong sense of family, community and worship.

Many groups have emerged that use these extra-biblical sources (Talmud). For example, Hasidic Jews (ultra-orthodox) and Orthodox Jews emphasize them. Some groups even emphasize mystical sources such as the Kabbalah. (For example, they may study astrology where Aries has a personality associated with the characteristics of “fire.” Therefore, Aries would not have had the patience to write this blog.) Other Jews, such as the Karaite Jews, completely reject extra-biblical sources. But, as we have noted, many Jews give them great importance.

Jesus went out of his way to break down or diminish some of the extra-biblical traditions. He did this in his famous Sermon on the Mount.(Matthew 5) He also purposely violated Sabbath traditions. Even today there are many acts of forbidden work. Many of them have nothing to do with ordinary daily tasks. For example, some Jews today will not even turn on a light switch because it is associated with construction. (A circuit is constructed when someone turns on a light switch.) They would rather walk up three flights of stairs than push an elevator button. Jesus did not do away with the Sabbath, during his earthly ministry, but he did contest unreasonable definitions of work. He performed compassionate acts on the Sabbath. It is not surprising that some of the Pharisees thought he was breaking the Law. In reality he was just breaking some of their traditions.

The teachings of Jesus, in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, prove that Jesus disagreed with some of their purity traditions. Their very question reveals that even they knew his disciples were just violating some of their purity regulations. “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” (Matthew 15:2) Jesus responded with this question: “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3) First, Jesus' answer to their question with his own reveals that he respected the commandments of God. Second, it reveals that it was some of “their” traditions (and not God's commandment) that he protested.

Some Christians suppose that Jesus used his authority to justify his own breaking of the Law. For example, some have concluded that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught against the Law; and they suppose that his teachings became effective after the cross. Therefore, his teachings could not violate the Law because they applied later. This is wrong for two reasons. First, Jesus was opposing Jewish traditions (not the Law). Second, his opposition was not prospective. We understand that Jesus could teach prospectively (as when he instituted the the Lord's Supper). But the Lord's Supper has nothing to do with Jewish traditions. Jesus could teach about current Jewish issues and future kingdom issues because he had the capacity to walk such a fine line without breaking the Law.

It would be hypocritical of Jesus to condemn the Pharisees for violating the commandment of God and then do the same thing himself. Jesus never lived by such a double standard. Jesus said to the Pharisees: “...hypocrites, as it is written: …. in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do. … All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” (Mark 7:6-9) Jesus accused them of “...making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down....” (Mark 7:13) This tradition was “handed down” orally. Rabbinical Jews say it started with Moses. This is a false claim. We cannot find where such a tradition was ever mentioned in the scriptures. But it originated at some point. And it was certainly enhanced by such renowned rabbis as Hillel who according to Wikipedia was born in Babylon c. 110 BCE, and died 10 CE (Common Era) in Jerusalem. (That would make him 120 years old.)

It is interesting to compare the attitude of some Jews about the New Testament with their attitude about the Talmud. We were listening to a rabbi claim in a video debate that if he could find just one error in the New Testament, the whole thing would be invalidated. Therefore, he asked, "Why bother with it?" He cited the differences in the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke.

This is a very difficult subject (especially since the public records have been destroyed). Nevertheless, we believe those records were available when Matthew and Luke were inspired. These genealogies were never successfully refuted. But there were likely some endless debates over them. Genealogies were very important for many reasons. For example, they were needed to establish Jewish identity. Was someone really a Jew? Were they qualified to be a Priest? Could they be the Messiah? Therefore, there were public and private records. But they were destroyed.

In any case, the rabbi said he found about twenty five discrepancies between the two genealogies. (The idea that Matthew presented Joseph's genealogy while Luke presented Mary's genealogy did not sway him. There are other ideas.) Therefore, the Jewish Rabbi asked, "Why bother with the New Testament?"

But what could we say about the Talmud? There are multitudes of opinions and discrepancies about nearly everything. Should we advise him that (by his own criteria) the Talmud has been invalidated? In fact, the Talmud is invalidated by the Old Testament. "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 your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2) Jesus knew this about his law, so he disputed with the Pharisees.

Are we to believe that Jesus disputed with the Pharisees “for laying aside the commandment of God” and then proceeded to put away the Jewish Kosher Food Laws? It seems so very hypocritical and unreasonable. But this is what some commentators, Jews and Christians say. Some believe that in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 Jesus used his authority to make all foods clean. Therefore, he eliminated the Kosher Food Laws. But why would Jesus switch from the subject of "false purity traditions" to Kosher Food Laws?

Jesus continued his discussion of the traditions. If we compare Matthew 15:11-20 with Mark 7:15-23, we can see plainly that Jesus continued talking about purity traditions and not the Kosher Food Laws. (Note the comments under Matthew 15:20)

Matthew 15:11-20	Mark 7:15-23
11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man;but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (This was said to the multitude and included the Pharisees. It offended the Pharisees. “Not that” has less of a universal connotation than “nothing.” We should keep in mind that Jesus is talking about food that has been eaten with unwashed hands. The Pharisees thought this would defile a man. He is not introducing any new law. He is refuting the “tradition of the elders” in front of a mixed audience of Pharisees and disciples.)	15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. (This was said to the multitude including the Pharisees. “Nothing” has a universal connotation. This could lead some to believe that both clean and unclean foods were allowed. Some believe Mark wrote to the Gentiles and was emphasizing that all foods are clean. However, this would distort what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew. “Nothing” can refer to the class of all clean foods.)
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? (This was what Jesus said to the disciples in the house. Jesus is giving additional explanation. “Whatsoever” has a universal connotation. It could lead his disciples to think any food is okay. However, it referred to whatever clean food they put in their mouth without washing their hands. “Whatsoever” can refer to the class of all clean foods.)	18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? (Verse 18 is basically the same as verse 17 in Matthew. “Purging all meats” at the end of verse 19 is not found in Matthew. Some commentators say Jesus is making all meats clean by “purifying all meats.” Some translators actually use the word “purifying” instead of “purging.” “Purging” comes from the Greek word katharizon which means “cleansing.” This word can be taken literally or figuratively. It should be taken literally as part of the digestion process that extracts nutrition from the food and makes it all come out the same. Some translators have become commentators with a Christian bias on this passage. For example the Amplified Bible reads: 19 Since it does not reach and enter his heart but [only his] digestive tract, and so passes on [into the place designed to receive waste]? Thus He was making and declaring all foods [ceremonially] clean [that is, [h]abolishing the ceremonial distinctions of the Levitical Law].)
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. (The last part of verse 20 is really the clincher. Jesus explains: “but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.” Therefore, we know that Jesus was talking about ritualistic purity traditions instead of the Jewish Kosher Laws. Matthew gives us no room to interpret this passage any other way. Therefore, Mark 7:19 cannot mean the abolishment of the Jewish Kosher Laws.)	20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

If Jesus abolished the Jewish Kosher Laws in Mark 7:19, Peter was totally unaware. In fact, some eight to ten years after Pentecost, Peter responded to the heavenly command: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” with “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” (Acts 10:13-14) Peter had always observed the Kosher Food Laws. Peter must not have had “ears to hear” when Jesus refuted the “tradition of the elders.” However, such a significant change in lifestyle would not have gone unnoticed.

 

Was Hillel right?

In order to pit Jesus against the Law of Moses, instead of just some of the ancient Jewish sages, some have obviously concluded that Hillel was mostly right about divorce. Hillel correctly interpreted the Law of Moses. Men could divorce their wives under the Law of Moses for practically any reason. Jesus was just being more conservative than Hillel when he put forth the idea that men could divorce their wives for fornication alone. (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9) Furthermore, we are told, that Jesus was preaching a new and a more conservative Christian doctrine. But some of us cannot accept the idea that Jesus fought against his own law before he became dead to it and nailed it to the cross. (Romans 7ff., Colossians 2:14). We also want to truly honor the disclaimer he made in Matthew 5:17-20 that he came not "to destroy the Law." Therefore, we are advocating a more historical perspective.

There was conservative legal precedent on this subject. Conservative Jews had expressed their legal opinion on the writing of divorcement found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. We first cited these differences of opinion over Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in writing in the mid-seventies (many years before the wide availability of the internet). At the time, we personally knew of none who had cited what we consider to be an original source document with ancient oral traditions recorded in the Mishnah as a source of establishing the opinions about divorce among the ancient Jews. These opinions were put forth by famous rabbis in the time of Jesus before the compilation of the Mishnah at the end of the second century of the common era. These oral opinions were recorded in the Mishnah later than the first century because of the destruction of the second temple. This destruction made the preservation of these oral traditions unlikely. The Pharisees did not want to lose them. Therefore, the traditions were codified in the Mishnah (even though many rabbis believed that the “Oral Traditions” should remain oral and never be codified). But these oral traditions, which can be found in the Mishnah, were not generally known by Gentile Christians or cited by Christian scholars.

Therefore, many years ago we investigated this subject by doing what we considered to be some difficult research. We visited a local rabbi to establish the rabbinical sources for the various opinions among the ancients concerning Deuteronomy 24:1-4. At the time, a rabbi in the local synagogue seemed pleased that we “Goyim”, as he liked to refer to Gentiles, were not able to read the Mishnah in the original language. He seemed pleased that his “Second Torah” (but really his first Torah in our estimation) was like a black box that only he and some of his peers knew about (no doubt after years of diligent study). Many Orthodox rabbis also believe it is necessary to know Hebrew to understand both the First Torah (our Old Testament) and the Second Torah (their Oral Tradition). That opinion excludes most Gentile Christians (and many Jews).

We feel that time has vindicated our original efforts with the local rabbi to understand the “Oral Tradition” on divorce. Now there is a plethora of information on the internet about the rabbinical opinions concerning Deuteronomy 24:1-4. These Jewish opinions on the internet correspond with our own original research in the synagogue. But some, who are prone to shun extra-biblical sources, are still not familiar with the rabbinical sources surrounding the statements of Jesus about divorce. We understand their orientation and perhaps their loathing of extra-biblical sources. But these original source documents (collections of ancient oral traditions) explain a lot about the historical and philosophical climate in which Jesus lived. Jesus had to deal directly with some of these oral traditions.

Not long back we were reminded of this unfamiliarity with these historical source documents on this subject when a minister of the Gospel inquired of us about our opinion on divorce. We appreciated his effort to get our opinion on the subject. We respected him as a person—still do. But at one point in the conversation, we asked him if he was familiar with what rabbis had said in the Mishnah on the subject of divorce. He admitted that he was not familiar with the material. We were surprised because he expressed an opinion and wrote on the divorce controversy. Of course, he did this from a totally Christian perspective. It seemed strange to us, especially with the material so readily available on the internet, that he did not know about these original Jewish source documents. We told him that we were surprised that he was not aware of this material in the Mishnah. However, we appreciated his honesty and his humility when he said he did not know.

“I don't know” is often the best answer. We do not condemn anyone for not knowing about these extra-biblical sources, but we recommend that people take a look at some of them (especially before they write articles on this subject and lend their support and their influence to a particular perspective). There are literally thousands of “scholarly” opinions on the internet on this subject, and many of them in no way correspond with the original historical setting. Part of our objective in this writing is not to prove that we are smarter, more “scholarly” or right; but to emphasize the historical setting of this subject. Jesus did not teach in a historical vacuum. Jesus addressed real world problems with real or historical solutions. We especially want to challenge the status quo on this subject. (Jesus did.) We believe that too many people smugly take their positions on this subject for granted and, sometimes even worse, only consult their local minister on the subject (or just listen to what “they have heard” in their local congregation from their favorite preacher or party). This is the same mistake made by many of the Jews in the time of Jesus.

For those who may not be familiar with the rabbinical grounds for divorce, we quote from Gittin 9:10 A. The House of Shammai say, “A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity, B. “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Deuteronomy 24:1).” C. And the House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his dish, D. “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything.” E. R. Aqiba says, “Even if he found someone else prettier than she, “since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Deuteronomy 24:1).” (Neusner, 1987)

The House of Shammai gave an interpretation that is very similar to the interpretation of Jesus (unchastity). We are not saying that it is exactly the same interpretation that Jesus gave (it might be). However, no one can deny that the interpretation of the House of Shammai is very conservative and very close to the interpretation given by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount. This proves that Deuteronmy 24:1-4 can be (and was) interpreted conservatively by some rabbis under the Law.

While there was much written by the rabbis in Gittin, there is very little written on the actual grounds for divorce which are given in the very last part of Gittin. It is obvious that the grounds for divorce range from the very conservative (Shammai) to the very liberal (Hillel and Aqiba). Furthermore, this range of interpretation is based on the very same passages in Deuteronomy 24. Obviously, the grounds for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 were much disputed. Therefore, Deuteronomy 24 begs for interpretation. Who better to interpret it than Jesus? Therefore, we see the real world problem. Clarification of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was really needed. This passage was hotly disputed in the time of Jesus. And we see the real world solution. Jesus gave them clarification even in the face of opposition. Therefore, we accept his authoritative opinion (as the Son of God) on this Jewish issue. And it is a Jewish issue.

As noted by Jesus, and by history, the grounds for divorce given by Hillel were the popular grounds for divorce. At one time, the Jews utilized the interpretation of one school versus another based upon their interpretation. Even today the Jews claim to take the opinions of all the rabbis into consideration, but they go by the “majority opinion” which is actually against the teachings of the Law of Moses. Jews must listen to their rabbis even when their rabbi may be wrong. In the case of divorce they go by Hillel. Hillel has the more liberal and popular opinion. Just as long as they followed the legal formula of giving a “writing of divorce” (a “Get”) they thought they were morally justified.

 We do not know any Christians who actually have given their Christian wives a Jewish “Get.” But Orthodox Jews are supposed to give a “Get” which is a particular kind of writing given only by a Jewish man to a Jewish woman and approved by the appropriate Jewish authorities in a rabinnical court. The Jewish man must do this voluntarily; and he must do it in the proper court. Today, if he will not do it willingly, he is often subject to corporal punishment or social isolation until he is “willing” to comply. This does not surprise us. Many Orthodox Jews do not accept divorces given by civil courts. If a Jewish man will not willingly give his Jewish wife a “Get” in a rabinnical court, she is deemed an Agunah or a “chained woman.” Any offspring of an Agunah is a Mamzer or a “bastard.” This is just another example where Christians cannot and will not follow Jewish legal practices. But Christians adopt Jewish legal practices when and where they can—at least in Spirit. Incidentally, “Gittin” is the plural form of a “Get” or a “writing of divorce.”

Jesus explains that the Jewish men took the right of divorce too far as well as for granted. Jesus quoted the teaching of rabbis, “Furthermore it has been said Whoever divorces his wife let him give her a certificate of divorce.” (Matthew 5:31) These rabbis were emphasizing that if you want to divorce your wife, write the proper document. Give her a “Get.” We see their emphasis. Grounds were not a problem! Jesus recognized that they were essentially teaching a “no fault” divorce for the man. Was that what Moses said? Absolutely not. That is what they had heard their rabbis say in the synagogue. But Jesus did not agree.

But according to the rabbis, if a woman so much as burnt the bread, she could be sent out of the house. Talk about what some have called the “innocent party.” She gets up too late, gets the oven too hot and burns the bread. She has a bad day. Her marriage is over! She is later stigmatized or made by her cruel husband to commit adultery. How fair is that? How insensitive and cruel is her husband to put her out in the cold over such a trivial thing? But such was their supposed right. We want to stress (contrary to popular and sometimes Christian opinion) that indiscriminate and trivial (no fault) divorce for the man was not the instruction of Moses. The law did not need to be changed. They just needed to change their interpretations.

Why do preachers pit Jesus against Moses? In our estimation, It is okay to pit Jesus against the interpretation of Hillel. (Hillel was just another man with an opinion.) Jesus said he was wrong. When Jesus gave his authority against the teachings of Hillel, he was just setting the record straight under the Law of Moses. However, some preachers have Jesus blaspheming Moses. They have Jesus making new legislation prematurely against Moses on the fly in the Sermon on the Mount. They have Jesus seemingly rectifying Mosaical mistakes. (This is just another “terrible implication.” What? Moses, and, therefore, God could not get it right when they considered the circumstances of the people of Israel?) But, according to Jesus' disclaimer (Matthew 5:17-20), Jesus did not see any real problems with the Law of Moses. On the contrary, the Law of Moses was valid and holy. The problem was with the way some of these rabbis distorted and handled the Law. They needed to renew their respect for God's Word. They needed to develop better interpretation skills. They needed to change their emphasis. They badly needed to jettison some of their oral traditions (like false and frivolous forswearing) which contradicted the commandments of God. (Matthew 23)

Incidentally, we believe that Jesus used absolute language and told them to “swear not at all” in the Sermon on the Mount for the same reasons that you do not give a child a gun. They had proven they were too immature and unworthy to handle this issue. It was too difficult for them. Furthermore, due to all the false teaching on this subject, they were badly confused. They could not make the proper distinctions. They were not able to bear detailed instruction. Therefore, the safest thing that they could do under the circumstances was just stay entirely away from the issue. Do not swear. James, the brother of Jesus at Jerusalem in the Jewish arm of the church, sent a letter to the “twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” and reiterated this admonition. Truthfulness is good advice for everyone. But this was especially appropriate for Jewish Christians. There were still Jewish Christians who could fall into the traditional trap of swearing by the wrong thing. They could easily find themselves forswearing. Since James the Just (brother of Jesus) died in approximately 62 of the common era (before the destruction  of the second temple), this is just a historical reality.

We believe that Jesus typically used hyperbole to emphasize dangers which people should avoid. For example, when Jesus was trying to dramatize the sometimes very real and powerful temptation to covet a woman and to commit adultery with her he said: “... if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off...” When Jesus said this, he was not expecting his disciples to show up with missing limbs. His statement was plain enough. His disciples understood that he was just dramatizing the need to avoid temptation at any cost. His teaching in no way contradicted the Law of Moses. In fact, his teaching to avoid temptation was just good advice. Solomon said something similar when he advised young men not to go near to the door of an adulteress. Stay away. Do not make provisions for the flesh. In the Sermon on the Mount, the message of Jesus was not to “change the Law.” The message of Jesus was to “change the man” by giving him a deeper understanding of his existing Law.

We want to mention the goodness of the Old Law. We know Jesus gave us a new and a better covenant after he nailed the Old Covenant to the cross. But let us never disparage the Old Law. That is what we are doing when we claim that rabbis such as Hillel were essentially right in what amounted to no fault positions on divorce. This reflects badly on God. But that is what we are doing when we say Jesus taught against Moses. The Old Law was perfectly suited for what God wanted to accomplish. It was a glorious law. Are we hearing that a law that was good enough to perfect our Savior was not good enough to elevate his disciples above the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees? If we have such a lowly opinion of the Law of Moses, let us say, we have a pitifully low opinion of God's Word. This was certainly not the opinion of Jesus. Paul said: "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” (Romans 7:12-13) In this passage, Paul points out that the law was not the problem. The law was good. The sinful disposition of man was the problem. The law just showed how truly sinful man really was. It just showed how much people needed the perfect sacrifice of Jesus! Therefore, the problem with the law was that nobody (except Jesus) could keep it. It was weak in the flesh. Jesus solved this problem for man by living perfectly without sin. Therefore, the law complemented Jesus. As Paul cried out in despair, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” He said: “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 7:24-25) Therefore, let us be very careful about disparaging a law which perfected Jesus and, consequently, perfects us. We need this law just as much as we need the perfection of Jesus.

Invariably, when a preacher wants to emphasize the superiority and the authority of Jesus over the Law of Moses, he quotes: “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Matthew 7:28-29) Preachers are usually trying to emphasize at least two things by quoting this passage. One, it was “his doctrine” and not the Law of Moses. Two, Jesus had the “authority” to speak against the Law of Moses.

Jesus was not exclusively teaching new doctrine. We have already tried to show that Jesus supported the Law with his disclaimer (Matthew 5:17-20). We endeavored to show in a previous writing that Jesus used expressions such as: "It is written", "What did Moses command you?" and "have you never read" as he appealed to and approved of the written word. We asked why Jesus appealed to the words written in Deuteronomy with the expression “it is written” in his temptation and then taught against the written word (according to some) in his Sermon on the Mount? We indicated that Jesus sometimes objected to “oral traditions” put forth by the rabbis. We said that Jesus indicated his objection to these traditions with the literary device of “You have heard … but I say.” Of course, some preachers emphasize just the “but I say” part of this literary construction; and they stress that Jesus was opposing the Law of Moses. We got into some of the “terrible implications” by stating that Jesus could not speak against the Law of Moses without condemning himself with his “least in the kingdom of heaven” pronouncement against those who would not “do and teach” the Law of Moses. We even touched on his use of “universal language” when we said he was speaking especially to Jews. For example could a (Jewish) man put away his (Jewish) wife for every cause? We stressed that this question applied to what the Jewish man could do to his Jewish wife, and not what the Jewish wife could do to her Jewish husband. A Jewish wife could not give her husband a “Get.” Of course, the impersonal and universal use of the term “you” by Jesus in the “You have heard” expression in the Sermon on the Mount was originally spoken to Jews who had actually “heard” these Jewish interpretations (along with some of the misplaced emphasis by the rabbis) in their synagogues. He could not have been speaking to Gentiles when he said “you” because Gentiles were usually never in Jewish synagogues and had never had the opportunity to hear these things. Besides, Gentiles were not his original disciples. Therefore, a Gentile would miss some of the Jewish details in the Sermon on the Mount even though much of what Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount can generally be applied (in principle and not in every Jewish detail) to anyone (Jew or Gentile).

We do not doubt the authority of Jesus. However, we do doubt that Jesus used his authority against the Law of Moses. What is so wonderful about Jesus is that Jesus was willing to humble himself and become subservient (obedient) to the Law of Moses even though he was technically equal with God. Jesus had authority, but he did not use it when it counted the most (like in living a perfect life under the Law). (Romans 7:1, Galatians 4:4)

When we were young, we liked the slogan of a company that manufactured block making machines. That slogan said: “Big enough to serve you and small enough to know you.” This slogan reminds us of Jesus. Jesus was definitely “big enough.” As the Son of God in heaven, and not just another rabbi, he humbled himself even unto the cruel death of the cross. That is why God has also highly exalted him. Jesus was willing to go to the cross for us. He was willing to bow his neck and bloody his brow under the Law. What a savior! What a tragedy for us if Jesus had not been this type of a God. He could have called ten thousand angels (as the song goes). But he did not. In his temptation Jesus assured Satan (Matthew 4ff.) that he was going to be the best servant God ever had by living (and dying) by the written word. We love 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” Thank God he had this capacity and was willing to do it! No, we never question the authority of Jesus.

Sometimes preachers obscure the controversy over Deuteronomy 24:1-4 by citing a variety of divorces in the Old Testament. They cite concubines, servants and women taken in military conquest. We note, these women they cite often did not come into the marriage like a free woman; they did not usually have the same marital status while they were in the marital relationship; and they did not necessarily leave the marriage like a free woman. Citing these kinds of relationships simply obscures the controversy over Deuteronomy 24:1-4. That a man did not fulfill his marital obligations in a marriage has nothing to do with Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is about something “found” in the woman and putting her away. It is about a Jewish man giving a Jewish wife a “Get.” It is about the rabbinical abuse of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. It is about a well-known Jewish controversy. Bringing in all these other examples into the mix is basically not what Jesus was addressing in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. These are side issues that simply divert our attention away from the central issue. That is, they are “red herrings.” Therefore, it is wrong to bring them into this question because Jesus was not addressing every issue that men can imagine in the Old Testament (or the New Testament for that matter). In fact, (not like us) he gave very little time to the entire subject. He was just citing many examples where his disciples had heard the wrong thing. Still, as always, what little he had to say was very important.

 The emphasis of Jesus was not the same as the rabbis. They were looking at the supposed rights of the man under the Law of Moses. All a man had to do was follow the proper procedure and give his wife a “Get.” On the other hand, Jesus wanted them to think about this issue from the perspective of their wife. He also wanted them to think about this issue from the perspective of their Father in Heaven. He wanted  them to get  away from just some of the technical issues which rabbis spent most of their time on. When we read “Gittin” in the Mishnah, we are reading technicalities and procedures for giving a “Get.” But Jesus, who was always concerned about the person and their condition, was looking at this issue from what they were actually doing to their wives. Jesus did not speak like the scribes and the Pharisees. Therefore Jesus said: "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” (Matthew 5:32)

Many take this statement of Jesus to be Christian teaching. Nevertheless, what Jesus said was true when he said it. Suppose it is Christian teaching. Do Christians really want what Jesus said? Not really. Here is an example. There is this poor housewife. All she does all day is take care of the kids, run to the store, pick up after her husband and make herself look pretty. She stays home all day, and one day her husband comes home from work and says: “Honey, I want a divorce.” She asks why. He trumps up some trivial charge and says: “You are too good to me.” And she is. She does everything he says. She is completely innocent. But he puts her away anyhow. Do Christians want her to be classified as an “adulteress” for the rest of her life when she finds another man? Absolutely not. She is basically innocent. But Jesus says the man is causing her to “commit adultery.” Now she has been stigmatized as an adulteress. Her fault? Is that really what Christians want? Not really. But that is what Jesus said. After most Christians really think about her plight for a moment, as Jesus described it in Matthew 5:32, they will most likely reject what Jesus said. Christian women do not want to remain single, or to be classified as an adulteress, for the rest of their life. Was it her fault that she married a mean man?

No doubt, if she is a Christian, she will go to 1 Corinthians 7 to find a loophole. Keep in mind that there was no 1 Corinthians 7 when Jesus said this. If she is a Christian, she may begin to talk about “fornication after the fact” and all kinds of other esoteric subjects. Perhaps she will look into the “mental divorce” aspect. What did she ever do to deserve such a plight? But that is what Jesus said. That is why Jesus in essence said to his disciples: “Look at what you are doing. You have ruined a life. You have destroyed a home. You have turned a fine woman into an adulteress.” 

Do we suppose that God will hold the man guiltless for all of this? Well, the rabbis thought so. The man had followed all the technicalities and the proper procedures under the Law. Really? Well, he gave her a “Get” according the the Law of Moses. (Or was it that he gave her a “Get” according to the opinions of the rabbis?)

Was Hillel right? Could divorce be had for almost any reason under the Law of Moses? Let us hear the prophet under the Law. "But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.” …. “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?” ( Malachi 2:14, Malachi 2:15-17)  Was Hillel right?

Waco Address

 I was asked to give a speech on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage; and I was also asked to give a speech on the Holy Ghost. Of course, giving a speech on either, in the time allotted, is similar to trying to get a drink out of a fire hydrant. However, I can see some commonality between the two subjects. For example, Jesus used some "universal language" in the Great Commission in Mark 16 when he said: "These signs shall follow them that believe." There are many believers, and we are all believers, but do these signs follow us? Likely, none of us believe that we can pick up deadly serpents or drink deadly poison, such as cyanide, without being harmed. And we can find scriptures, such as in Acts 5:12, where it says that "By the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought." When we keep the audience of Jesus in mind, we understand these believers were a select group of people. He wasn't speaking to "all believers", such as you and me.

In Matthew 19:3, there is a similar situation when the Pharisees came tempting Jesus by asking him: "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" I believe we need to keep in mind who was asking this question. We need to keep in mind the audience of Jesus. When we can  understand their question we can understand the answer that Jesus gave to their question.

I was speaking to a minister of the Gospel, not long back, and he said he believed that the primary objective of Jesus was to "preach the Gospel." In fact, he quoted me the scripture that "The law of the prophets were until John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it." I told him I thought he should notice the very next verse where Jesus gave a disclaimer. Jesus said in the next verse that "It easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail." Why would Jesus give this disclaimer if his only objective was to "preach the Gospel"?

 I can see Jesus accomplishing more than one objective. Jesus came not only to "preach the Gospel", but he also came to "confirm" or to "fulfill" the Old Testament. I believe that Jesus could easily accomplish the purpose of "preaching the Gospel" and "confirming the Old Testament." In fact, in Luke 16, where the scripture was given that "The law on the prophets were until John, and since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth the into it", we can go a little bit further. There even seems to be a scripture that is somewhat out of place in that passage. Verse 18 says that "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." That scripture seems to be somewhat out of place. But it is not out of place when we consider the fact that some might interpret the event of John the Baptist preparing the way of the lord, and Jesus preaching the gospel of the kingdom, as something that is in opposition to the Law of Moses.

 Jesus went on to give an allegory in Luke 16 about "Lazarus and the Rich Man." I know many believe in the "sufficiency of the scriptures" and so do I. In this story about "Lazarus and the Rich Man", Jesus gives the Pharisees a lesson about the "sufficiency of the scriptures." Jesus describes a very bad situation where a very poor man, with sores on his body, lay at the rich man's gate, while the rich man fared sumptuously every day. The only friends that Lazarus had were the dogs that came and licked his wounds. Well, eventually, Lazarus died and was carried into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also eventually died and lifted up his eyes in Hell. He could look across this chasm and see that Lazarus was being comforted while he was being tormented. His situation was drastically reversed. By and by, he made a request of Abraham that Abraham would send Lazarus to his father's house, where he had five brethren, and warn them not to come to this place of torment that he was in. Nevertheless, Father Abraham would not fulfill the request of the rich man. He told him, rather, that his brothers have Moses and the Prophets, "let them hear them." So I think we can see that the scriptures were sufficient, at the time. At the time, if they wouldn't hear Moses and the Prophets, they wouldn't likely hear even if someone would rise from the dead, such as Jesus Christ.

I asked this minister, that pointed out that the “Law and the Prophets were until John”, if he preached the same gospel that Jesus and John preached. What was the gospel that Jesus and John preached? Well, they both preached that the "kingdom of heaven was at hand." I also asked if he prayed the "Lord's Prayer", especially the part where Jesus said "thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." He said he did because he wanted the kingdom to come into the lives of the people. Well, I can see how we can pray that prayer in some ultimate sense. But I believe that Jesus was praying that prayer in an imminent sense. And I also believe that he was preaching "the imminence" of the kingdom of heaven. He was preaching that the "kingdom of heaven was at hand." And, in fact, in Mark the ninth chapter and verse one, he said: "Many of that generation would not pass away until they had seen the kingdom of God come with power." I believe the kingdom of God did come with power in Acts the second chapter. That's why I don't preach the same gospel that Jesus and John preached. I don't preach an "imminent kingdom." I also don't pray for the kingdom to come in any imminent sense because I believe the kingdom has come. To me, it seems unnecessary to pray for that which we have already received. Of course we can still pray for the kingdom to come in an "ultimate" sense into the lives of people. But we should not forget that we have been "translated" into the kingdom of his dear son. That's why I preach that the kingdom of heaven is "here and now." I don't preach the same gospel that Jesus preached. The gospel I preach is more like the gospel that Paul preached. Paul determined not to know anything but "Jesus Christ and him crucified." He primarily preached "the cross." He preached the "death, burial and resurrection" of Jesus Christ. That's the same gospel I preach.

On the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage, I want to examine the question that was asked Jesus by the Pharisees. As I have already stated, I believe that we need to keep the audience of Jesus in mind. The audience was very important. Of course, the Pharisees asked Jesus a question about marriage, divorce and remarriage using "universal language." They asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for "every" cause. I don't believe they meant just "any man" or "any wife." I believe they were asking about "Jewish men" and "Jewish wives", because they were asking what was "lawful."

Gentiles didn't live by the Law of Moses. They lived by a law of the conscience, as was explained by Paul in Romans. Therefore, I don't believe they were asking what was lawful for Gentiles to do. I believe they were asking what was lawful for Jewish men to do. That's why I believe that if we can understand their question, then we can understand his answer, because I believe that he gave an answer that corresponded with their question.

Why would he give an answer to a question they didn't ask? Why would he speak about the future when they wanted to know about the present? Therefore, I would like to say that essentially they asked this question: "Was it lawful for a (Jewish man), parenthetically, to put away his (Jewish wife), parenthetically, for "every" cause? When we appropriately consider his audience, these parentheses, that I have added, don't do any harm at all to their question. Therefore, I believe that if we can understand that they asked a "Jewish question", then we can clearly understand that he gave them a "Jewish answer." Why would he give them an answer that was "off the subject" and that "did not pertain" to their question? Why would he give them a "Gentile Christian answer" when Christianity didn't even yet exist? We know Jesus prospectively talked about a "coming kingdom", but he gave "current answers" to "current questions."

One of the problems that we have in the Holy Ghost question, that I was asked to speak on, was that we often "misappropriate" language that doesn't pertain to us. The same thing with the "marriage question." We often appropriate language that does not pertain to Christians. Many things that were said to "first century Christians", about the Holy Ghost, simply do not pertain to us today. Therefore we should not try to appropriate those things, or should I say "misappropriate" those things, that were said to "first century Christians" about the "gifts of the Holy Ghost."

First, let me say this about the question that the Pharisees asked Jesus in Matthew the 19th chapter. Jesus was always very "respectful" of the Law of Moses. Some people who believe that Jesus was adding to the Law of Moses are very fond of using the expression "but I say" which is found in Matthew the fifth chapter. They suppose that Jesus was using his authority as a license to speak against the Law of Moses. However, Jesus used many other expressions to show his approval of the Law of Moses. For example, when he was tempted by Satan in the wilderness he very plainly stated: "It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." This expression "it is written" showed profound respect for the Law of Moses. In fact, Jesus resisted the Devil throughout his entire temptation by quoting from Deuteronomy. Why would Jesus extol the written word in his temptation, and then oppose it in his teaching? In fact, Jesus did not oppose the written word.

In Mark 10, a parallel passage to Matthew 19, the Pharisees came tempting Jesus, and Jesus asked them this question on marriage, divorce and remarriage: "What did Moses command you?" Would he ask them this question if he was unconcerned about what Moses said? In Mark 10, they had gotten the point that Moses had not "commanded", but rather he had merely "suffered" or tolerated divorce. This was the same point that Jesus emphasized in Matthew the 19th chapter. Another expression that Jesus used in Matthew the 19th chapter, to show his respect for the written word, was "have you never read." Again, Jesus appealed not to his own authority, but to the written word. I personally believe that the Jews would not have tolerated disrespect for the Law of Moses for one minute. Although they might disagree about what the Law said, certainly, they all agreed that the Law of Moses was very important; and they all appealed to it.

Now in Matthew the fifth chapter, some Christians suppose that Jesus opposed the Law of Moses, or went beyond the Law of Moses, when he used the expression: "You have heard that it hath been said, but I say unto you." Was Jesus opposing the Law of Moses, or was he opposing what they had "heard said" about the Law of Moses? Was he opposing the "written word", or was he opposing the "oral tradition" about the written word (that later evolved into the Mishnah, the Gemara and the Talmud)? In other words, was he opposing the "written word" or was he a opposing the "oral traditions"? The expression "you have heard" leads me to believe that he was opposing the "oral traditions," because this was not something that, at the time, was written down.

In Matthew 15 and Mark 7, Jesus was reprimanded by the Pharisees for violating the "oral traditions" or the "tradition of the elders." He also reprimanded the Pharisees for violating the commandment of God with their traditions. Obviously, Jesus thought the commandments of God were much more important than their traditions. And, therefore, this shows us that Jesus had a lot of respect for the commandments of God. So why would Jesus uphold the commandments of God, on one hand, and oppose the commandments of God on another? That's why I don't believe that Jesus was opposing the written word in Matthew the fifth chapter when he used the formula "You have heard....but I say." However, some Christians do interpret the teachings of Jesus in Matthew the fifth chapter as opposition to the Law of Moses. To them it seems like Jesus is teaching against the Law of Moses.

For example, Jesus used the hyperbole expression "swear not all" in opposition to frivolous foreswearing. Some people interpret this categorical statement of Jesus "swear not a all" as opposition to the Law of Moses, when he was merely opposing frivolous forswearing. They were obviously guilty of trivial and false swearing that Jesus opposed. I personally think it is wrong to confuse hyperbole with total prohibition. In fact, the Apostle Paul himself later made oaths and took vows. For example, the Apostle Paul used the expression of an oath to certify to the Corinthians in 2nd Corinthians 1:23 the truth of his statement. He said: "Moreover, I call God for a record upon my soul." There is no doubt that this statement was in the form of an oath. But often the Pharisees made trivial oaths, and had forgotten the true seriousness and the true sense of oaths as intended in the Law of Moses. Therefore, Jesus used hyperbole, and told them to "swear not all."

Furthermore, Jesus gave his audience a disclaimer in Matthew 5:17 and told them not to think that he had come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, he had not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, he had come to fulfill them, or accomplish them or to confirm their truth. Even today Christians should consider this disclaimer of Jesus very carefully when they want to suppose that he opposed the Law of Moses, because they are sometimes thinking exactly what Jesus told them not to think. I think we're making a very serious mistake when we discount this disclaimer that Jesus gave them.

Some Christians will readily agree that Jesus kept the Law of Moses, that he lived by it perfectly, without sin. But they sometimes make the statement that he "taught against" the Law of Moses; and they don't seem to be understanding what that statement entails. That statement entails what I call some "terrible implications." In his disclaimer, Jesus made the statement that "Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach man 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." Jesus was speaking about the Law of Moses, for he had just said: "Til heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law til all be fulfilled." Some Christians will readily admit that Jesus did the Law, and kept the Law, but they will not readily admit that he was teaching the Law (in spite of the fact that Jesus said do and teach). In the disclaimer of Jesus, teaching was just as important as doing.

I told this minister of the Gospel, who thought that Jesus had come primarily to preach the kingdom of God, that there were some very serious implications in his doctrine. I told him that his doctrine would undermine the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. And he said, "Well, how is that"? I said: "Well, if Jesus taught against the Law, then he was a blasphemer (because that's what blasphemy means); and if he was a blasphemer, then he was a sinner under the Law of Moses; and if he was a sinner under the Law of Moses, he was not a perfect sacrifice; and if he was not a perfect sacrifice, then we are all in trouble." These are just some of the necessary inferences of Jesus teaching against the Law of Moses. As we can see, these are certainly "terrible inferences."

Furthermore, I said: "You are causing many Christians to become what I call Judaizers." A Judaizer is someone who tries to appropriate, or should I say misappropriate, Jewish traditions. I told him: "If I tried to reinstate Jewish betrothal, wouldn't I be a Judaizer? Or if I tried to bind the Jewish kosher laws on Christians, wouldn't I be a Judaizer? And, by the same token, if I try to bind the answer of Jesus in Matthew 19:9, to a Jewish question, on Christians, am I not a Judaizer?"

I believe in Galatians Paul makes it very plain that there are some very serious consequences when we try to bind Jewish traditions on Christians. In the first chapter of Galatians, Paul refers to binding Jewish laws on Christians as preaching "another gospel." As a consequence, Paul said: "Let him be accursed." Obviously, this is a very serious consequence. Although, Paul was primarily speaking of binding circumcision on Christians; he was not entirely speaking of binding just circumcision on Christians. By reading such chapters as Acts 15, we can understand that some Christian Jews intended to bind the entire Law of Moses on Christians. Paul made it plain that it was logically impossible to bind just part of the Law of Moses on Christians. In Deuteronomy 27:26, Moses had attached a curse to everyone who would not "confirm all the words of the Law to do them." That's why Paul said, in Galatians 5:3, if a person decided to be circumcised, he was "a debtor to do the whole law." Likewise, if we try to bind Matthew 19:9 on Christians, then we are "duty bound" to keep the entire Law.

It was impossible to "cherry pick" the Law of Moses. A person had to keep the whole thing. The Law of Moses was not a buffet where people can "pick and choose" what they wanted. Naturally, it was impossible for anyone to keep the entire Law of Moses (except for Jesus Christ). In James 2:10, James said: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." That's why we need Jesus Christ because he lived perfectly under the Law of Moses. He was the perfect sacrifice. In Galatians 5:4, Paul talked about another very serious consequence of trying to keep the Law of Moses. He said if you try to be "justified by the law" you are "fallen from grace." What greater consequence can there be than "falling from grace"? And so a man who's trying to bind Matthew 19:9 on Christians is making them a debtor to the entire Law of Moses. He is also causing Christians to "fall from grace."

In referring to Matthew 19:9, some ministers state that they don't want to bind anything on Christians that the Lord did not bind on Christians. And they don't know that they are unwittingly, perhaps unknowingly, binding the entire Law of Moses on Christians when they try to enforce Matthew 19:9. Since Jesus is not speaking to Christians in Matthew 19:9, to appropriate it, or misappropriate it, is to become like the Galatians, and to become Judaizers. And to become a Judaizer, as we have seen, is no small thing in the mind of the Apostle Paul.

If we apply the disclaimer that Jesus made in Matthew 5:17 to Jesus, there is an absurd implication involved in that application. In verse 19 of Matthew 5 Jesus said: "Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments (of the Law of Moses as we have seen) and shall teach man 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." Now we want to make an application of this disclaimer to Jesus. If Jesus taught against the Law of Moses, then would he not be "least in the kingdom of heaven" by his own words? We can see the absurdity of this implication; because in Revelations 19:16 we are told that Jesus is "King of Kings and Lord of Lords." Certainly, he is not "least in the kingdom of heaven." This implication is obviously terrible and absurd, and that's why I call it one of the "terrible implications." If we are teaching that Jesus taught against the Law of Moses, we are implying that he's “least” in the kingdom of heaven and that's an impossibility. Therefore, we should be very careful not to teach that Jesus taught against the Law of Moses.

Now let's examine a few more things in Matthew the 19th chapter. Jesus said in verse 4, "Have ye not read (indicating his great respect for the written word) that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." I have heard that when Jesus gave the divorce law, in Matthew 19:9, that he was intending to bring the Jews back to God's original intentions. This seems strange to me because God never intended divorce at all. God only intended a marriage. When Jesus commented about God's original intention, which only included marriage, they wondered what had become of the divorce law. They wondered what had become of the "bill of divorce" that can be read about in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Therefore, they asked Jesus "Why did Moses command to give her a writing of divorcement,  and to put her away?" As we mentioned before, Moses had only "suffered" them to put away their wives. Jesus said Moses did this because of the "hardness of their hearts." Now we might suppose that Moses simply gave them a writing of divorce because of the "hardness of their hearts." But Jesus did more than just acknowledge that Moses gave them a writing of divorce. Jesus went on to elaborate that there was something more specific than just “burning the bread” involved. Moses used the term "some uncleanness" or "ervah." It means a "matter of nakedness." It's the same term we can find in Leviticus 18 and 20 about having inappropriate sexual relationships with those who are prohibited. Therefore, Jesus elaborated and said: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." Certainly, fornication is much more "specific" than just "burning the bread."

I believe that fornication is an "umbrella term" that can include sexual intercourse before marriage, and also sexual relationships after marriage, or sexual relationships during betrothal. The case of Joseph and Mary is a good example of possible intercourse during or before betrothal. Of course, she was the only human witness to her conception. And Mary was the only one who realized that she was still a virgin, and had not engaged in sexual intercourse. The Pharisees thought that Mary had engaged in sexual intercourse, during or before betrothal, when they said "we be not born of fornication" (and they might just as well have added "like you were").

Fornication during betrothal was a form of adultery because it involved mixing the seed of one man with the betrothed of another man. And when something is impure, we consider it to be adulterated. Mixing seed in the field implied adulteration, as well as mixing various forms of cloth together. Putting new wine in old wine skins would have been a form of "spiritual adultery"; and Jesus trying to have a relationship with the church while he was having a relationship with the Law of Moses, would have been a form of “spiritual adultery.” In Jeremiah 3:8 when God saw that Israel committed adultery, he "put her away" and gave her a "bill of divorce." Therefore, "some uncleanness" can involve adultery. In Deuteronomy 24, if a woman went and married another man, she could not return to her husband because the "land would be greatly polluted." That is, the woman he put away had been considered his property (or his field) and he could not mix another man's seed in his field. That would have been adultery. When she became the wife of another man, she became "defiled" or polluted or adulterated.

I personally believe it is very questionable that she had the right to become the wife of another man. Most versions in Deuteronomy 24 simply state  "and if" she become the wife of another man in place of the word "may" (which we take as permission). I don't believe we should forget that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is "descriptive" and "case law" and is merely "describing a situation" and is not necessarily giving permission for the woman to become another man's wife. Of course, that concept is subject to debate as most concepts are. Let us not forget that she became "defiled" by her marriage to another man (and not just defiled to her former husband).

I also personally believe that the man committed adultery by the act of putting away his wife in Matthew 19:9, unless he put her away for fornication. In Matthew 19:9 the word adultery is in the Greek in the "middle voice" and is reflexive. That means whatever he's doing to the woman he's also doing to himself. After all, she is "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh"; and he has involved his marriage in adultery, when he puts away his wife, because likely she will become the wife of another man. As Matthew 5 says, he is "causing her to commit adultery." But if she is guilty of fornication, she has caused herself to commit adultery.

In Matthew 19:10, the disciples of Jesus recognize that his teaching on divorce immediately applied to them because they said to him: "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." Jesus did not correct their view and say this was for the future, or for Gentile Christians in the future. They understood it was for them right at that time.

In Mark 10:12 Jesus said something to his disciples "in the house" that he did not say in Matthew 19. In Mark 10:12, he said: "And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." A Jewish woman did not have the right to put away her husband directly under the Law of Moses. Now she might indirectly cause him to put her away, but she could not directly put him away. The Jews have a term for this. It is called "Agunah" which means a "chained woman." She is a woman who is "chained" to her husband because he will not give her a divorce.

Strangely, some Christians suppose that Jesus made the woman equal with the man when he denied her the right to get a divorce in Mark 10:12. Some Christians claim that when Jesus denied the right of divorce to a woman, he gave her the "implied right" to the exception that was given to a Jewish man. I personally believe that Jesus was simply acknowledging that Jewish women were divorcing their husbands, and he was denying them that right. He may have been stating the obvious, and it may seem superfluous to us, but we can see that such women as Herodias were actually putting away their husbands. John the Baptist lost his head because he pointed out the obvious to Herodias and Herod.

I don't think we should be oblivious to the fact that many Jewish people were being assimilated by the surrounding Greco-Roman cultures. The family of Herod, in particular, had very close ties to very powerful Romans and Greeks. In fact, the Herods could not have ruled Israel without the acquiescence, and the full support, of Rome. I suppose then it would take a lot of courage on the part of Jesus to prohibit divorce to women given the fact that Herodias, who had been married to one of her uncles, divorced him, and married her other uncle. In any case, John the Baptist referred to her as the "wife" of Herod's brother. We can infer from that, she was legitimately the wife of Herod's brother.

In recent years, divorces written by women have been discovered in Israel. (Josephus mentions several women who inappropriately put away their husbands.) Therefore, we can assume that Jewish women were putting away their husbands unlawfully.

Christian women who desire to put away their husbands, because they suppose they have “the cause,” should be mindful of the fact that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is about a man "putting away a woman." Likewise, the language in Matthew 19 is about a "man putting away a woman" (and not just "a man", a "Jewish man" putting away a "Jewish woman").

I want to close by saying that in Matthew 19 Jesus gave an answer to the greatest question that has ever been asked. That question is simply "Good master what must I do to inherit eternal life"? We notice that Jesus did not give this young man a "Christian answer." Rather, he gave him a "Jewish answer." He said: "...if thou will enter into life, keep the commandments." Now I believe that he meant all the commandments of the Law of Moses. Well, the rich young ruler asked: "Which commandments"? There were ten commandments. The first commandments dealt with the relationship of a Jew to God. For example, he was not to take the name of his Lord in vain. The last commandments, or the last table of the ten commandments, dealt with the relationship of a Jewish man to his neighbor. For example, he was not to covet his neighbor's wife. We might notice that Jesus did not give the same answer, or a Christian answer, that Peter gave in Acts the second chapter to that question "What must I did to be saved"? Peter said in Acts 2: "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Jesus did not give that answer. He did leave the door open by telling the rich young ruler to "sell what he had, to give to the poor, and to come and follow him." Nevertheless, he simply told him to keep the commandments.