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.