Some Comments and Questions for Brother Battey

There will be an "Open Bible Study" where brother Malcolm Kniffen will present his position on "There is no-exception for divorce and remarriage in the gospel age" and then brother George Battey will present his position on "There is an exception for divorce and remarriage in the gospel age." It will be held at Seminole State College on Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Jeff Johnston Fine Arts Center in Seminole, OK. Some of our friends have asked us to submit some questions for the “question and answer” period.

Some of brother Battey's positions are not very plausible. Such is the case in brother Battey's explanation of “The Case of Joseph and Mary?” in his PDF “Response to Malcolm Kniffen.” In “The Case of Joseph and Mary”, in Matthew 1:18-25, brother Battey avoids the obvious cause for divorce. The obvious cause is that she was “found with child.” This means that Joseph would naturally suspect that Mary was guilty of fornication during their betrothal period. While the Holy Ghost's role in Mary's pregnancy is important, brother Battey overemphasizes it to the point that he makes it the primary reason that Joseph wanted to divorce his wife. Brother Battey transforms Joseph's wanting to divorce Mary for fornication into Joseph's wanting to divorce Mary because he is afraid of the Holy Ghost conception. Why does brother Battey do this? We are introduced to a very novel reason for divorcing your Jewish wife. You want to divorce her because you are afraid of the Holy Ghost conception. We ask brother Battey: Is fear of the Holy Ghost conception a good reason for divorce?

Brother Battey very unconventionally states: “Notice the facts of this case: Mary was found to be 'with child of the Holy Spirit.' In other words, Joseph didn't just find out that Mary was pregnant. He found out she was pregnant with a 'child of the Holy Spirit.' Joseph doesn't want to make Mary a 'public example.' Why? Because the child she is carrying was 'of the Holy Spirit' and Joseph knew that. Why then was Joseph wanting to divorce Mary? Let the Bible speak: Matthew 1:20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.' What was the problem? Joseph was afraid. What's he afraid of? He's afraid to marry a woman who is having a child 'of the Holy Spirit.' You would be afraid to marry a woman like that too. (If you wouldn't be afraid, you ought to be!)”

We question brother Battey's “facts of this case.” We also question his very novel and erroneous interpretation. First, let us present the actual passages from the King James Version. “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 1:18-20) Brother Battey wants to “Let the Bible speak.” Therefore, we have done so, and we think it is obvious that the passages do not support his interpretation. We ask brother Battey: Have you really “Let the Bible speak” in this case?

Second, the statement “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” does not mean that Joseph understood the reason Mary was found with child. The scriptures do not even imply that he understood this extraordinary event. It merely states the fact that “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Therefore, we ask brother Battey: Did Joseph really understand that Mary's pregnancy was “of the Holy Ghost”?

Third, due to “cause and effect” reasoning, fornication would be the normal “cause and effect” conclusion. Fornication was even the obvious criticism which the Pharisees cast at Jesus when Jesus accused them of being illegitimate. They responded: “We be not born of fornication.” (John 8:41) We think they meant “like you were.” We ask brother Battey: Didn't Joseph believe that Mary was pregnant because of fornication?

Fourth, we question brother Battey's facts because of the actions which Joseph was considering. Would Joseph have been weighing the various courses of action which could have been taken for fornication had he known Mary was pregnant by the Holy Ghost? Knowledge of such a conception would have removed all possible guilt. Joseph was a rational man as well as a just man. He would have immediately realized Mary was innocent based upon her miraculous conception. After all, the Holy Ghost doesn't go about doing evil. As a rational man, he contemplated all the possibilities which were available to a man who understood the scriptures. The possible options for fornication were “death by stoning” (or “public example”), private divorce and simply taking no legal action at all by accepting his betrothed as his wife. These were the three possibilities under the Law of Moses. Therefore, we ask brother Battey: Can't at least three options be considered when fornication is a factor under the Law of Moses? Why did Joseph consider taking one of these three options?

But brother Battey does not believe in more than one legal option for fornication under the Law of Moses. We suspect that this is why he has so much difficulty with the obvious facts of this particular case. Brother Battey clearly states the one and only option for fornication. We quote: “a man could not divorce an unfaithful spouse because all unfaithful spouses were to be executed.”

However, Joseph believed Mary was an unfaithful spouse. But, unlike brother Battey, Joseph did not decide to have Mary executed. Joseph decided for the private divorce option. This is exactly opposite to what brother Battey states was possible. But after a special revelation from the angel of the Lord, Joseph finally decided that he would keep his spouse. Who is right about these options, brother Battey or Joseph? We ask brother Battey: Didn't Joseph believe Mary was an unfaithful spouse when he decided to divorce her? Didn't the angel of the Lord come to convince Joseph that Mary was not an unfaithful spouse like he had supposed? Why did the angel of the Lord try to convince Joseph that Mary was not an unfaithful spouse if Joseph already knew about the Holy Ghost conception?

Brother Battey said brother Malcolm cannot refute that an unfaithful spouse must be executed. However, Joseph did. The angel of the Lord did. And Jesus also refuted brother Battey's idea that execution was always necessary for fornication. What about the woman taken in adultery by the Pharisees, brother Battey? Was she executed or not? She was not executed but Jesus saved her from an unlawful and unmerciful death at the hands of the Pharisees. The Pharisees thought execution was the only option. Would brother Battey agree with the Pharisees? From all appearances, it seems that he would. However, Jesus lawfully dismissed her accusers and told her to “go and sin no more.” We ask brother Battey, did Jesus violate the Law when he made this choice? Did Jesus violate brother Battey's absolute assertion that she must be executed? Why didn't Jesus have the woman taken in adultery stoned? See "More Correspondence Scenarios."

Fifth, the angel of the Lord informed Joseph that Mary was pregnant of the Holy Ghost after Joseph had already decided to divorce her. Brother Battey has obviously missed the timing of the events. “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 1:20) Therefore, the angel of the Lord was trying to change Joseph's mind and stop him from divorcing Mary for fornication. The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph to show him that Mary was pregnant by the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost conception was the primary reason Joseph was going to divorce Mary, then why would the angel of the Lord tell Joseph about the Holy Ghost conception after he decided to divorce Mary? Is brother Batteys' timing of the events correct?

Sixth, there is no indication that Joseph was actually fearful of the Holy Ghost conception. Brother Battey makes fear of the Holy Ghost conception the primary reason Joseph wanted to divorce Mary. He states: “What was the problem? Joseph was afraid. What's he afraid of? He's afraid to marry a woman who is having a child 'of the Holy Spirit.' You would be afraid to marry a woman like that too.” But fear of the Holy Ghost conception is not even given as a secondary reason for divorce in these passages. In fact, Holy Ghost conception is given as the primary reason that Joseph was not afraid to take his wife. We ask brother Battey: Didn't Joseph change his mind and decide not to divorce Mary instead of deciding to divorce Mary after the angel of the Lord told him not to be afraid? Was Joseph really afraid of the Holy Ghost conception?

Seventh, the idea that Mary was “highly favored” and to be feared by Joseph misses the point. What did Joseph fear? He feared that Mary was a sinner (not a highly favored woman).

Brother Battey has gotten himself into trouble in this case because he is trying to impose his erroneous conclusion upon the facts of this case. But instead of changing his erroneous conclusion, that a woman must always be executed for fornication, he has decided to change the facts of this case. Therefore, we ask: Is brother Battey trying to change the facts of “The Case of Joseph and Mary” to fit his conclusion? Is he trying to create a contradiction between Jesus and the facts of this case? Did Joseph actually have more options because he was afraid of Holy Ghost conception than he would have had if Mary had simply fornicated? How does the “public example” option actually fit in with this fear of the Holy Ghost? If fear of the Holy Ghost would not be an option, then why would Joseph, as a rational and just man, even consider it?

We have noticed that brother Battey likes contradictions (especially between Jesus and the Holy Scriptures.) On the other hand, we like correspondence between Jesus and the Holy Scriptures and we believe correspondence is absolutely necessary. We should be on our guard against preachers who are constantly contending for contradictions between Jesus and the Holy Scriptures. We ask brother Battey: Did Jesus contradict the Holy Scriptures or not? Did he engage in destructive teaching? What does it take to destroy the scriptures? Also, what are some of the “terrible implications” of contradicting or blaspheming the Holy Scriptures? See more on this at the "Waco Address."

As a prophet like Moses, brother Battey believes that Jesus had the right to contradict the scriptures. He quotes Deuteronomy 18:18-19, “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.”

Of course, Deuteronomy 18:18-19 does not say Jesus would contradict Moses during his earthly ministry. One very important thing which Jesus taught was that he had not come to “destroy the law.” (Matthew 5:17) However, brother Battey believes that Jesus could refute the Law. Furthermore, brother Battey believes that Jesus was contesting the Law when he used the formula in the Sermon on the Mount, “You have heard … but I say.” Brother Battey said that Jesus used the expression “You have heard” because the people were illiterate. However, Jesus and his brothers, James and Jude, were not illiterate. Furthermore, Jesus knew what had been emphasized in the “Oral Traditions” in the synagogue. That is why he used the expression “You have heard.” See our posts "Traditions of the Elders" and "More on Correspondence."

Brother Battey believes that what the Jews had “heard” in the synagogues from the Pharisees could be read almost verbatim in the scriptures. What they heard corresponded with the Holy Scriptures. But we noticed how brother Battey “Let the Bible speak” in “The Case of Joseph and Mary.” We do not consider brother Battey's account of Matthew 1:18-25 to be anything close to the scriptures. The Pharisees claimed the very same thing. But we do not consider their “Oral Traditions”, to always have corresponded with the scriptures. They put emphasis on the passages that was never intended. The Pharisees emphasized the scriptures about like brother Battey emphasized the scriptures. We ask brother Battey: Can it be proved that Jesus used the expression “You have heard” because the Jews were illiterate? Do we know the first century literacy level? Do we know the literacy level of the people Jesus addressed in the Sermon on the Mount? Also, is there any “misplaced emphasis” in what the Jews had heard in the synagogues among the Pharisees?

Did the “tradition of the elders” contradict the scriptures? (Matthew 15ff. and Mark 7ff.) Did Jesus condemn the Pharisees for transgressing the “commandment of God” with their traditions? If Jesus condemned the elders for transgressing the commandment of God with their traditions, then why didn't he condemn himself for contradicting the scriptures in the Sermon on the Mount with his teachings? Was Jesus a hypocrite?

Brother Battey does not seem to have much respect for extra-biblical history. We notice this implicit ridicule of extra-biblical history (probably the “Oral Traditions”) when brother Battey complements brother Malcolm. “He uses scripture.” It is a good thing Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their “Oral Traditions” which were extra-biblical. We have merely pointed this out. Jesus opposed many of the extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees. We believe Jesus upheld the law and opposed some of their extra-biblical traditions. On the other hand, brother Battey believes Jesus opposed the law; and brother Battey equates the extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees in the Sermon on the Mount with the law of Moses. Who is standing for the scriptures here? Brother Battey has Jesus at odds with the Holy Scriptures. Are the extra-biblical interpretations of the law equal to the law? Brother Battey will not mention the extra-biblical conflict between Shammai and Hillel. Does brother Battey desire to suppress a well-known Jewish debate?

Now we want to point out some opposition that we have to some of brother Battey's extra-biblical history. Brother Battey, where did the idea of the “Guilty Party” come from? We cannot find this idea in the Gospels. Brother Battey believes that the innocent party (party not guilty of fornication) could divorce the guilty party (party guilty of fornication) be they male or female. Brother Battey believes this so called right applies equally to all the parties. But it never says this in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9. It always speaks about a man putting away his wife. It does say in Mark 10:12 “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” We believe that Jesus said this because people like Herodias were putting away their husbands. For example, Herodias put away her uncle Philip which was contrary to the law. Some preachers seem to think this passage makes the “Christian” woman equal with the man and gives her the implied right to divorce her husband for fornication. Others seem to think this is an absolute prohibition given to Christians because Jesus said it “in the house.” In any case, no exception is implied for the woman. Were Jewish women equal to the man in matters of divorce?

Another contradiction that brother Battey likes to cite is between Deuteronomy 24:2 and Matthew 19:9 concerning the supposed right for the woman to remarry in Deuteronomy 24:2 (but not in Matthew 19:9). Brother Battey likes this supposed contradiction because it helps his position. The following table lists all the possible contradictions and correspondences between Matthew 19:9 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4 concerning the woman's supposed right to remarry or not.

Possibilities	Deuteronomy 24:2	Matthew 19:9	Contradiction or Correspondence	Some adherents we know about
1.	Woman may marry again	Woman may not marry again	Contradicts	Ronny Wade, George Battey
2.	Woman may not marry again	Woman may marry again	Contradicts	None we know about personally
3.	Woman may not marry again	Woman may not marry again	Corresponds	Clark Carlo, Randy Deems, Dwight Hendrickson
4.	Woman may marry again	Woman may marry again	Corresponds (implicitly)	Malcolm Kniffen, Ervin Waters

Some of us contend for possibility number 3. We have presented many reasons why we believe that Jesus did not use “destructive teaching.” Possibility 3 is consistent with our contention that Jesus always supported the Holy Scriptures. There is correspondence. Possibility 4 also supports correspondence.

Randy Deems introduced possibility 3 in a previous issue of the TVOTT. Some of us have believed in this possibility for a long time. We mentioned it in a previous post. We admit that it may be somewhat new, but it is not new to us. And it is not new to translators. For many years, we have known that different translations treat the presentation of the conditions and the consequences given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 quite differently. The format of the conditions and the consequences is supplied by the translators.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 consists of compound condition(s) leading to conclusion(s) or consequence(s). This is often found in “case law.” Protasis (condition) and apodosis (consequence) are common terms applicable to “if/then” constructs found in “case law.” These conditions or consequences may or may not please God. A condition is sometimes described rather than condoned. Jesus admitted in Matthew 5:31-32 that innocent Jewish women were caused to “commit adultery.” God was not pleased with it. It was just an ugly fact that described the circumstances. Unconditional divorce, given in Jewish traditions, violated the Holy Scriptures. The Jewish men were guilty of the same adultery which they forced upon their Jewish wives.

In Deuteronomy 24:4, the Jewish man could not take his Jewish wife back “after she is defiled.” Why is she defiled? It is difficult to say. However, the fact remains that “she is defiled.” The rest is merely conjecture. At this point, we invoke the “safe argument” which brother Battey says is not safe. Questionable situations are not questionable to brother Battey. But the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is questionable. However, we accept the interpretation of Jesus.

To support position 3 in the above table, and to prove the Kings James Version translators could have translated “halak” in Deuteronomy 24:2 in descriptive and conditional terms such as “and she go” instead of the misunderstood consequential and permissive terms such as “she may go”, we refer to Jeremiah 3:1. In that verse, the King James Version translators actually did translate the word “halak” as “and she go.” Note Jeremiah 3:1 in the King James Version: “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord.” It is properly translated as a likely possibility and a condition instead of as a misunderstood permission and a consequence in Jeremiah 3:1. Is permission for the woman to remarry in Deuteronomy 24:2 the only possibility?

We take brother Randy's suggestion and cite Young's Literal Translation. There are others. “When a man doth take a wife, and hath married her, and it hath been, if she doth not find grace in his eyes (for he hath found in her nakedness of anything), and he hath written for her a writing of divorce, and given [it] into her hand, and sent her out of his house, and she hath gone out of his house, and hath gone and been another man's, and the latter man hath hated her, and written for her a writing of divorce, and given [it] into her hand, and sent her out of his house, or when the latter man dieth, who hath taken her to himself for a wife: Her former husband who sent her away is not able to turn back to take her to be to him for a wife, after that she hath become defiled; for an abomination it [is] before Jehovah, and thou dost not cause the land to sin which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee – an inheritance.'” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) Notice that Young uses many compound conditions and then concludes with the ultimate consequence. All those compound conditions are not necessarily approved by God.

More Correspondence Scenarios

In some previous posts, we have written about the correspondence between Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9. In one post, we emphasized the chronological and the content correspondence between these passages. There is definitely a historical correspondence between these passages. If we miss the historical correspondence between these passages, then we are definitely on the wrong side of Jewish history. We are ignoring, and even suppressing, history that has been published. The Jewish history on this issue was obviously a problem for Jesus. But sometimes the important history and structure of these passages is ignored in favor of some of the meager “word studies” or contortions, as we might call them, which are sometimes concocted to obscure the historical connections and the historical correspondence between these passages. It is possible to focus on the minutia of “word studies” and miss the bigger historical picture.

A very important aspect of correspondence is to recognize when Jesus was dealing with the past or with the future. The fact is, Jesus dealt with some issues which concerned the past (such as Deuteronomy 24:1-4). But he also dealt with some issues which concerned the future or the kingdom. In such situations, the way things would be in the future did not put Jesus in conflict with the way things were in the past. And it is very clear that Jesus addressed both the future, the past and the present. Furthermore, Jesus did not use his teaching to destroy any historical teaching. Jesus did not use destructive teaching. This recognition is key to understanding the natural harmony that existed between the future and the past in Jesus' teaching. It is also key in recognizing that Jesus did not sin against or set aside the Law and become “least in the kingdom of heaven” himself. (Matthew 5:17-19)

For example, one minister of the Gospel wrote (we are paraphrasing him from memory) that a beloved brother in Christ believed that what Jesus said in Matthew 18 applied to Christians and Matthew 19:9, on the other hand, applied to Jews. He found it incredible that his beloved brother could possibly think that one passage applied to Christians and other passage did not. He obviously believed it was inconsistent. However, we believe, the minister of the Gospel had constructed a “false dichotomy” in his mind which obstructed his understanding of his brother's more flexible and reasonable position. His brother was not engaged in “black and white” thinking. His brother recognized the difference between historical problems and futuristic teachings. But the minister of the Gospel was engaged in exclusive either/or thinking.

Some of us do not believe that the beloved brother's more flexible position (one set of passages applied to Christians and the other set of passages did not apply) is contradictory at all. In fact, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount applied generally to both the Jews then and to Christians now. We are in trouble when we try to remove the universal applicability of Jesus' teachings. We Christians can glean a lot of truth from the Sermon on the Mount. We should not cast out the Sermon on the Mount just because we believe that some of it does not apply to Christians. But we sincerely believe that many Christians are thinking exactly what Jesus told the Jews not to think in Matthew 5:17 when he said “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets.” We should recognize that the Sermon on the Mount did not apply to Christians in some of its Jewish details and constructs. However, Paul emphasized that there is a universal applicability to the scriptures. Paul wrote to Timothy, “and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15) From his youth, Timothy had known what we call the Old Testament scriptures. We want to emphasize that they were the “Holy Scriptures.” These scriptures were “Holy” and deserved all the respect which Jesus obviously gave them. But some claim that Jesus used his authority to deny some of the scriptures. However, it was just the opposite. Jesus used his authority to emphatically confirm all the scriptures. Jesus certainly was not on some kind of a smear campaign against the scriptures. All the scriptures are (and were) “Holy.” That is why Jesus indicated a tremendous amount of respect for the scriptures when he used expressions such as “it is written.”

Well some might object and say that we are trying to have it both ways. We are trying to have Jesus teach the Law and the Gospel. Exactly. Some may say “Well you can't have it both ways.” Wrong. The Gospel which Jesus taught and the Law were supremely and divinely compatible! Jesus knew what he was doing. We should stop seeing contradictions whenever we have to deal with something which may at first seem to be ambiguous or incongruous. (Notice in a previous post that we emphasized that Jesus preached a Gospel which we cannot possibly preach in every respect. For example, we cannot possibly preach “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” If we try to teach that, we are flagrantly wrong.) Therefore, we think it is important to recognize the context of what Jesus was saying.

For example, in Matthew 18, Jesus was obviously engaged in some futuristic teaching about the kingdom. On doctrine, for example, Jesus told his disciples “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18) There was a lot of futuristic intent in these words. These are the very same words Jesus used in Matthew 16:19 when he told Peter “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” This also was futuristic. We recognize that Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. We can actually specify the day and the hour. Then Peter began to bind what had never been bound before. On assembly, Jesus said in Matthew 18:19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Jesus said something similar in John 16:22-24 with regard to his impending death. “Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.” Jesus became their mediator (and our mediator) after his death on the cross. Some have said that Matthew 18:19 does not refer to church assembly. Perhaps it does. Perhaps it doesn't. It could refer to prayer and discipline. But it could also refer to church assembly. The Jews have a concept which is really not scriptural. (They twist the scriptures to make their idea fit.) They believe that it requires ten men to make a Minyan or the smallest group that is necessary to conduct worship. But Jesus said that two or three can assemble in his name and have his presence. We think that this is much better than a Minyan. In any case, assembling in the name of Jesus, or by his authority, had never been done before. It was not historical. It was new and futuristic. But would someone please give us a good explanation why this futuristic teaching would destroy the Law of Moses?

On the other hand, in Matthew 19:9 and in Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus was dealing with a historical problem among the Jews. This was not (or should not have been) a futuristic problem. Unfortunately, we have borrowed this historical problem. We are still debating it (just like the Jews). It is very unfortunate. We guess that “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” This debate should be recognized as a historical problem. For those who do not believe that Jesus was dealing with a historical problem, just look at the language. “It has been said.” (Matthew 5:31) This was something that had been emphasized in the past in their synagogues. Therefore, Jesus was plainly dealing with history. It was an “oral history.” We may deny it however much we want; but this is just a historical fact. If we deny it, then history is against us. We have simply missed the history. But some suppose that Jesus was giving futuristic answers to historical problems. Therein lies the mistake. Even the disciples of Jesus recognized that Jesus was giving good answers to historical questions. Furthermore, they recognized that these answers applied to them in their time before the Christian era. “The disciples said to him, 'If this is the case between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.'” (Matthew 19:10) What is futuristic about their exclamation? Please review a previous post about the question from the Pharisees that Jesus was answering in Matthew 19:9. It consisted of a “lawful” correspondence factor, a “male” correspondence factor (because a Jewish woman could not initiate a divorce against her Jewish husband) and it consisted of an “every cause” correspondence factor. There was a debate among the schools of thought about the “every cause.” These correspondence factors far outweigh any of the minutia contained in some of the word interpretations so often used to muddy the waters. These correspondence factors constrained Jesus' answers. While some Christians suppose that Jesus answered the Pharisees outside of the constraints imposed on him by their question, the Jews expected Jesus to answer them within their constraints which they imposed upon him. But the overriding constraint imposed on Jesus was the fact that he could not violate the Law without destroying his work of redemption. Can anyone convince us that this does not matter? In previous posts we have mentioned some of the far reaching implications of Jesus destroying the Law of Moses. We have called them the “terrible implications.”

Obviously, there was much confusion among the Jews about the right to divorce and remarry. They were using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as a proof text for the right of the Jewish man to divorce his wife. Actually, they were in error when they tried to use this “case law” as a proof text for divorce. It was really not designed as a proof text for divorce. The Pharisees had changed this passage from an allowance for a man to divorce his wife, for a specific cause, into an actual command for a man to divorce his wife for “every cause.” That is, if your wife was guilty of something unchaste, or even if you just “hated her”, you were commanded to divorce your wife.

Jesus said they were merely “permitted” by Moses to divorce their wives. We want to notice an important point right here. Jesus said the interpretation of the Pharisees did not correspond with what Moses had actually said. Nevertheless, some would have Jesus correcting the Pharisees and then have Jesus violating Moses by doing the very same thing he accused them of doing (not having an answer that corresponded with Moses). Who would correct Jesus? Why do some, by their interpretations, have Jesus making irrelevant criticisms about correspondence? Was it wrong to disagree with Moses or not? Some would certainly have Jesus to be living by a hypocritical and a double standard. The Pharisees were wrong. But what Jesus said did not correspond either? Was Jesus also wrong? According to some, Jesus had the right to be wrong because he was an authority answering historical questions with futuristic kingdom law. He superseded Moses. This idea certainly violates Galatians 4:4 where we are told that Jesus was born “under” the Law. This was a constraint that guided Jesus all of his life. Some would say Jesus was not subject to any such constraint. If so, their feeble assertion is in direct violation of the scriptures. It is simply outrageous to accuse Jesus of living by a double standard. If such were the case, Jesus could not sin because he would be making up the rules as he went. But he was “in all points tempted as we are yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15) Without a level playing field, it would have been a case of sin for them; but not for him. No. Jesus gave the proper explanation of what Moses actually said because Jesus considered a lack of correspondence important enough to point it out to the Pharisees. But the Pharisees could not point out his lack of correspondence to the Law of Moses because there was none.

We want to elaborate on this important point just a little. The Pharisees kept putting Jesus under tremendous pressure. It was the kind of pressure where a normal man would have failed. They were trying to get him to deny the teachings of Moses and subject himself to the retribution of Rome. This was the real reason they brought Jesus the woman who was taken in adultery. Rome had removed the right of the Jews to carry out the death penalty. Therefore, the Pharisees thought they could cause Jesus to lose favor with Rome, by agreeing to kill this adulterous woman, or they thought he would lose favor with the people, by violating the law of Moses. Either way, they thought Jesus would lose in the Temple. Their desire to cause Jesus to lose was much greater than any sense of Godly propriety. But Jesus was a merciful man, a lawful man, and he knew their intentions. He never did oppose the Law of Moses even under extreme pressure.

In John 8:1-11 Jesus was in the temple in the midst of a large crowd. The Pharisees saw this as an opportunity to discredit him in front of a lot of people. Therefore, they brought to him this woman caught in the act of adultery. In their minds, it was an open and shut case. The Law of Moses was plain. She should be stoned. Was not the death penalty the only solution for someone caught in the act of adultery? It was in their minds. (It still is in the minds of some.) However, Jesus upheld the Law because he said: “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” (John 8:7) The accusers slipped away one by one because Jesus had convicted them. Jesus also understood that there must be accusers to have a legal situation. But there were no accusers because Jesus had dismissed them. Therefore, Jesus asked the woman: “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you? 'No, Lord,' she said. And Jesus said, 'Neither do I. Go and sin no more.'” (John 8:10-11) Notice he did not excuse her sin. Neither did he violate the Law. But he showed mercy. This was a win for Jesus, for the adulteress, for mercy and the Law. But the Pharisees lost because they had left all the decency for which Jesus stood. In all of this, Jesus kept the Law. We ask a very important question. Why did Jesus uphold the Law in the Temple under such great pressure? Well Jesus lived under the Law. He was a man who could be lawful and merciful at the same time. What an amazing man! His very life corresponded with the Law of Moses. Therefore, why would Jesus discard correspondence with the Law of Moses in Matthew 19:9 when he did not do so in the case of this adulterous woman? He kept the Law at all costs and in every condition.

More on Correspondence

In a previous post, we have written on the chronological and content correspondence between Matthew 19:9 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4. We believe these passages correspond. However, some others believe they do not.

We believe there are several important flawed correspondence assumptions presented about the teachings of Jesus. First, is that Jesus taught against the Law of Moses in Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:31-32. But we have tried to present that there was actually a lack of correspondence between Jesus and the Pharisees (not Jesus and the Law). Second, we tried to make a distinction between what was “written” and what was “heard” in the synagogues. Jesus was always very supportive of what was “written”, but he was not always very supportive of everything that was “heard” in the synagogues. For example, he was not supportive of misplaced emphasis. Also some have seemingly assumed that Jesus completely addressed everything that was ever said about marriage and divorce in the Old Testament. Therefore, “red herrings”, such as rules about women taken in military conquest, slaves used as wives and the necessity for a husband to support his wife, are cited as examples of a lack of correspondence between the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Jesus addressed the controversy over Deuteronomy 24:1-4 because that was the area where the Jews were having a problem.

But some, in reference to Matthew 5, have made the statement that “hearing” was the only way Jews could get any information because they were illiterate. Therefore, when Jesus said “you have heard”, in Matthew 5, he was disputing against the Law of Moses. But it is impossible in our day to make absolute assertions about the literacy level in the first century. Obviously some could read and write. At least there was partial literacy. For example, Jesus could read and write. He read from the scriptures in the synagogue. He also wrote on the ground when they brought him the woman taken in adultery. (This message on the ground was very likely much more than a doodle because Jesus knew letters.) Also his disciples and relatives (such as his brother James) wrote epistles. The assumption that they always had to use scribes is just conjecture. Furthermore, Jesus used expressions like “it is written”, “have ye never read” and “you have heard” to indicate those teachings of which he approved and those teachings of which he disapproved. These were not just statements about the level of literacy. These were statements about the sources of truth and error. The written word was not a source of error. It was a source of truth. The very fact that Jesus used expressions such as “it is written” and “you have heard” indicates that he knew the important difference between the two sources. The oral sources and the written sources were not the same. This is just a historical fact.

It was posted and written in the temple that gentiles would die if they went beyond a certain point in the temple. It was written by those who knew that some could read. Why did Pilate write “king of the Jews” in three different languages and post it upon the cross? Because some people could read. Even some educators, such as Rabbi Shimon Ben Shetach, had established schools and programs to increase the level of literacy among the populace. Furthermore, it was emphasized in the Old Testament that parents had the obligation to teach their children. (Deuteronomy 6:7) No doubt they even memorized the scriptures. Therefore, it is very difficult to make legitimate statements about the level of first century literacy.

Let us note that the study of the scriptures has always resulted in a very high level of literacy among religious people. For example, Paul said about Timothy “from a child you have known the holy scriptures.” (2 Timothy 3:15) He also said to Timothy: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) The ability to “study” and to know the scriptures required literacy. It is stated of the Bereans: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11) This required literacy among the Bereans and the Thessalonians. Note that the Thessalonians were not criticized for being illiterate. They were criticized for a lack of diligence.

It is said of Jesus, “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” (Luke 4:17-21) Jesus stood up to “read.” He “found the place where it was written.” This requires literacy. It was not a miracle that Jesus could read. It was merely his ordinary custom. Also it is very unlikely that he was alone in his ability to read. There were others because people were not flabbergasted that he could read. They were amazed, and greatly offended, because he said: “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” He angered them because he applied this passage to himself. The people in Nazareth obviously considered Jesus to be just an ordinary person with ordinary relatives and ordinary abilities. Therefore, reading was no doubt considered by them to be just an ordinary attribute. But his claim about what he read was certainly extraordinary. It greatly angered them.

No doubt the Pharisees, the scribes and the doctors of the law took pride in their education. They considered themselves to be the “learned” and others to be the “unlearned.” This was a big part of their culture and their problem. They supposed they were the ones who had a right to interpret the scriptures for everyone else. They could read. They could make copies. The scriptures were their personal domain. But, while they exalted themselves in the scriptures, Jesus made trouble for them because he violated their ideas of how things should be. Jesus was supposed to be an ignorant person from Nazareth. They were supposed to be the defenders of the truth. So they tested Jesus. Therefore, perhaps with some ridicule in his voice, Jesus asked them on more than one occasion: “Have you never read in the scriptures”? These people, with their vaunted ability to read and write, should have read some of these things in the scriptures. Would Jesus ask them this if he was illiterate?

Jesus expected people to have a legitimate knowledge of the scriptures. In Luke 10:25-28 the scriptures say: “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” This man gave a scriptural answer and Jesus acknowledged that fact. The lawyer quoted the Shema (“Hear, O Israel”) in Deuteronomy 6:5. However, this man was tempting Jesus because he wondered if Jesus would give him a scriptural answer. Jesus knew he was being tempted, so he asked: “What is written in the law? How readest thou?” Jesus acknowledged that if he did this (what he could read in the Law), he would live. The Old Testament commandments were predicated upon the love of God and the love of neighbor. In fact, Jesus said: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:40)

The Sadducees were ignorant about the scriptures concerning the resurrection. They did not believe in a resurrection. In Matthew 22:23-33 it says: “The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.” Jesus' doctrine, about which they were astonished, was based upon a certain scripture which they had not properly considered. That is why Jesus said: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” Had they known the scriptures, as they should have known them, they would have had reason to believe in the resurrection.

The parable or the allegory of the rich man and Lazarus indicates the Jesus and God expected Jews to have a knowledge and a respect for Moses and the Prophets. No doubt Jesus expected them to have the same respect which he always exhibited.

At one point in this parable, the rich man made a special request. “And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” (Luke 16:24-31) A proper knowledge and respect for God's word was very necessary. It was just as necessary as the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It is also a reminder that even if we end up in hell, we will not want our brothers to be there. This is a very sobering thought.