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.