We have used the debate in Seminole as a “case study” for some of the concepts we have entered into our previous posts on our blog. Unfortunately, we believe that many of these concepts require repetition because some of them are not often heard in some pulpits. Therefore, these concepts are sometimes foreign and require some repetition. Debate also helps to counterbalance some of the sacred cows we encounter. Real world examples, such as the debate in Seminole, can be helpful too if it is not used as some kind of peer pressure tool to keep the herd in check. Dialog is beneficial too. However, it is very difficult to have dialogs when the subject matter is basically taboo or does not fit the norm in a particular brotherhood or congregation.
Clint De France, on his very informative and interesting web site, has given us a very small preview of some of the ideas which may be debated by brother Malcolm and brother Battey in Seminole, Oklahoma on Saturday, March 14 at 6:00 p. m. in the Jeff Johnston Fine Arts Center in Seminole, OK at the Seminole State College. In Clint's post, "Are the Gospels Old Testament Books?", Clint explains: “This writer will be moderating an open Bible study between Malcom Kniffen and George Battey on the subject of divorce and re-marriage, in which the subject of this article will be a major point of discussion.” Since Clint will be the moderator in this debate, and the subject of Clint's post “will be a major point of the discussion”, we want to review the subject matter of Clint's post. We have no ill will against Clint. But we strongly disagree with some of his statements.
At the start of his post, Clint asks these questions: “Do the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John belong to the Old or New Testament? Put another way, do the Gospels reveal the Mosaic Covenant of God with Israel, or the Christian Covenant of God with the Church?”
Our answer is simple. Must we take brother Clint's choice? We do not even accept the wording of the questions that were “Put another way.” For example, part of the choice, “do the Gospels reveal the Mosaic Covenant of God with Israel” is irrelevant and incidental. But in fact they do. Why does Clint even juxtapose this part of his statement against the revelation of “the Christian Covenant of God with the Church”? We suppose that Clint wants us to decide one way or the other. Why? Once again, we are presented with a “false dichotomy” where we are expected to decide one way or the other. Either choice would be wrong. It is typical “black and white” thinking which supposes that these are the only two alternatives; and that these alternatives are mutually exclusive. But they are not only two alternatives; and they are not mutually exclusive. Also the difference between the conjunction “and” and the disjunction “or” also makes a big difference. “And” combines. The exclusive “Or” separates. Clint wants us to separate that which can be combined. Jesus taught a “preparatory Gospel” and he confirmed the truth of the Old Testament. These efforts were not contradictory. This is how we would explain the work of Jesus.
Let us give this example. In brother Battey's pamphlet “'No-Exception' For Divorce (Is this true?)” on page 22, brother Battey has a section entitled “VARIOUS PROBLEMS.” Brother Battey presents this division under that section: “The no-exception position ignores the mission of John.”
This is a misrepresentation. We do not ignore the mission of John. As proof for this false representation, brother Battey says that we claim: “During His earthly ministry, Jesus could not teach anything differently than what Mosaic Law already said. Jesus is restricted to clarifying Mosaic Law. He spends His entire life-calling people back to the Mosaic Law without teaching one statute of His soon coming, new kingdom.” We deny every single misrepresentation. We are not even sure how Jesus doing something is even related to his false proposition that our position ignores John's mission.
The Prophets gave the authority for the work of John the Baptist. “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” (Mark 1:1-3) Was it necessary for the Prophet Isaiah to define every single action that John the Baptist took in preparing the way of the Lord? Would Isaiah have to give the complete details of John's work for his work to be authorized? This was unnecessary just like it was unnecessary to describe the dimension of every single board which Noah placed in the Ark. However, the building of the Ark was authorized.
We defy brother Battey, or Clint, to show us where this Baptism of John was a “new covenant” work. It was a transitional work. It was a preparatory work. But it was not part of the “new covenant.” If it were part of the “new covenant”, then why did Paul rebaptize those who knew only the Baptism of John? (Acts 19:1-7) This work was a transitional work between the institution of the covenants and it was provided for by the Prophets in the Old Testament.
John's Baptism was a baptism of repentance. This baptism required the Jews to “get ready” for the coming kingdom and the new covenant during this transition period. Repentance requires an “existing law.” When Jesus asked the Pharisees where the Baptism of John came from, they would have known had they been able to associate the work of John the Baptist with the “messenger” we can read about in Isaiah 40:3 or Malachi 3:1-5. But they could not do that just like they could not recognize the return of Elijah the Prophet in Malachi 4:5. Elijah was a great prophet under the Old Testament. John, who came in the spirit and the power of Elijah, was claimed by Jesus to be the greatest prophet under the Old Testament. Jesus said: “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Matthew 11:11) Why was John the Baptist less than the least in the kingdom? Answer. He was never in the kingdom.
Brother Clint says: “This writer... believes that indeed the Gospels should be reckoned a part of the revelation of the New Testament of Jesus Christ, and that the majority of the teaching and instruction found within the four Evangelists is in fact binding on the Church.” Whatever the writer believes, there is no general rule like this which can be applied to Matthew 19:9.
Clint also says: “Christ and His apostles were subject to the Law of Moses (Galatians 4.4), however from John the Baptist to the Cross is the continuous message that the Messianic Kingdom (the Church) is “at hand” (Matthew 3.2, 4.17, 10.7; Mark 1.5; Luke 16.16). And Christ himself often teaches things that would have no application at the time, but would later apply to the church.”
In Matthew 19:9-10 the disciples of Jesus knew that Jesus' teachings immediately applied to them as Jews under the Law. What Jesus said in Matthew 19:9 did have an “application at the time” contrary to the inappropriate rule which Clint tries to impose on Matthew 19:9. Jesus did not spew forth meaningless and inapplicable answers to Jewish questions. His statements were always very much to the point. Matthew 19:9 did not “later apply to the church.” Clint has introduced a disconnect between the questions which the Pharisees asked Jesus and the answers which Jesus gave to them. Clint would like to separate the answers from the questions. Clint uses disjunctions. The answer which Jesus gave to the Pharisees was both appropriate and applicable at the time.
Brother Clint appeals to the time when the Gospels were written. He says: “The first reason why the Gospels cannot possibly be considered Old Testament books is that the Apostle Paul attaches the abrogation of the Law of Moses to the death of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2.14), which is seen in Jesus’ post resurrection claim, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth…” (Matthew 28.18). Formally, the New Institution began on the Day of Pentecost and all of this transpired in approximately A.D. 33. However, the Gospels were not written for years after! Matthew was written around A.D. 50, Luke A.D. 58, Mark A.D. 68, and finally John in A.D. 90. So, the earliest Gospel was written almost twenty years after the Old Testament was nailed to the cross; the last Gospel forty years after that!”
What difference does it make when the Gospels were written? They were histories. They refer to events that took place in the past. They were accurate accounts. They were inspired. When we describe events in the past, we cannot imply that those events necessarily pertained to the future. The Gospels were historical and written so that we might believe. (John 20:31)
Clint has Jesus adding to the Law, taking away from the Law and basically blaspheming, contradicting and outright rejecting the Law. Clint says: “Jesus taught New Testament teaching in public settings as well, such as in the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5.1-7.29, Jesus gives instruction and doctrine that adds to the Old Testament teaching (Matthew 5.21-22), subtracts from Old Testament teaching (Matthew 5.31-32), and rejects Old Testament teaching (Matthew 5.38-42); but when giving these teachings he gave a qualifying charge: 'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven' (Matthew 5.17-19) By saying that the Law and the Prophets must be obeyed until 'all is fulfilled' he was saying, 'until the Son of Man is risen from the dead' (Luke 24.44-46).”
Indirectly charging Jesus with blasphemy is a serious thing. But brother Clint manages to do it. Brother Battey manages to do it too. It seems that Clint is following in brother Battey's footsteps. This is a bad thing. The Jews could not prove Jesus was guilty of sin. (John 8:46) But brother Clint and brother Battey indirectly do claim that Jesus was indeed guilty of sin. Clint should be more careful or else he might well be accused of charging Jesus with blasphemy. This is a serious thing.
Clint uses a slight of hand technique where Jesus gives with his right hand and takes away with his left hand. Jesus both affirms and denies his support for the Law. Jesus says he is not going to sin against the Law; but then he goes ahead and does it anyway. How can Jesus say he is not going to do something and then with impunity go ahead and do it? Sounds like some of our politicians. I am not going to do that but then proceeds to do it.
It reminds us of the parable Jesus gave to the Pharisees about the two sons. One son said he would not go, but he went. The other son said that he would go but he did not go. Jesus asked the Pharisees: "Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.” (Matthew 21:28-32) Jesus was also baptized with the Baptism of John to “fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:15) But the Pharisees were not baptized. Jesus always fulfilled the righteousness of the Law because Jesus was not a hypocrite like the Pharisees. Jesus never said one thing and did another. Jesus never asked anyone to do something that he could not do himself. He could always do more. He never accused anyone of breaking the Law and then broke the Law himself. Exception preachers invariably and indirectly make Jesus as a hypocrite.
Clint claims the “Be Attitudes” (Matthew 5.1-7.29) were additions to the Law of Moses. No. They were blessings prophesied by the Prophets. What makes them additions? Why doesn't Clint just run a few references on these “Be Attitudes” like we did? “Blessed are the poor in spirit....” (Psalms 51:17, Isaiah 57:15, Isaiah 66:2) “Blessed are they that mourn....” (Isaiah 61:2-3) “Blessed are the meek....” (Psalms 37:11) “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness....” (Isaiah 55:1, Isaiah 65:13) “Blessed are the merciful....” (Psalms 41:1) This took us a few minutes looking in the margin of our King James Version for references from the Old Testament. Verse 29 is just hyperbole to emphasize some good advice. Perhaps Clint is forgetting that Jesus was infinitely familiar with the scriptures and the blessings prophesied by them? Jesus knew and greatly respected the scriptures. But Clint does not give the scriptures their due respect. However, Jesus gives them his respect. He recounts their blessings.
In Matthew 5:21-22 Jesus pointed to the underlying causes of murder. Murder stems from rage and anger. This is not an addition to the Law. This is just why people go out and kill other people even under the Law of Moses.
In the account of Cain and Able, the Lord actually predicted that Cain would sin. Cain was angry because his brother Abel's offering was accepted and his was not. “And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” (Genesis 4:6-7)
The Lord was very graphical. We can almost see a lion or a wild beast crouching at the door ready to take Cain as he exits from his house. Satan also crouches like a lion and is lurking at our door and ready to take us for his prey. Cain immediately went out of his house and invited his brother out into the field where he killed him just like the Lord had predicted. The Lord could see it in Cain's face. It was the first murder. And it all came about because Cain was angry with both God and with his brother.
Jesus was also using graphical language to emphasize the reasons for murder. He was not adding to the Law. He was using hyperbole. There is no literal council on this earth waiting for the man who calls his brother a fool. However, we need to be sure that God will judge inappropriate anger. We also need to understand that people brought up in oral and vocal societies often used vivid language for emphasis and to strengthen the memory of their accounts. They were not prevaricating when they exaggerated for emphasis. They also were not creating new laws. They were just communicating. Perhaps people in the social media might call it “drama.” But Jesus was a powerful communicator. Unfortunately, Clint is mistaking Jesus' graphical language and intimate knowledge of the scriptures for creating new laws.
Murder proceeds from the heart. Those things which proceed from the heart are those things which defile the man. (Matthew 15:11) Jesus said this in the context of accusing the Pharisees of vain worship by teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)
Just before Jesus gave the underlying cause for murder in Matthew 5:21-22, he made this statement in Matthew 5:20. “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Jesus had a problem with the Pharisees. Jesus did not say, except your righteousness exceed the righteousness that is in the Law, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Jesus himself was justified by his righteous under the Law. Jesus did not have a problem with the Law. He had a problem with the Pharisees. In fact, the Pharisees hated him and were trying to kill him. Perhaps that is why Jesus pointed this out about the righteousness of the Pharisees.
Just before Jesus made this statement about the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, he gave a disclaimer and made sure they understood the constraints under which he was operating. Clint and brother Battey see no such constraints. When they do see them, they simply ignore them or they claim that Jesus was merely qualifying the reasons for the sins he was about to commit in the sermon which he was about to preach. They give these constraints token recognition. Brother Battey says emphatically that Jesus was the Messiah (and he implies that, as the Messiah, Jesus could do pretty much whatever Messiahs happen to do). This is doublespeak. Jesus was not his own standard. He did not live by the idea that every man should do what is right in his own eyes. (Judges 17:6) The Law of Moses was a standard by which Jesus conducted his entire life in virtually everything that he said and he did. Jesus went by the scriptures in his temptation; and Jesus went by the scriptures in his Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was totally aware of his limitations. People talk about “Walking Bibles.” Jesus was a “Walking Bible” and more. Jesus was the Word made flesh. (John 1:14) He in no wise engaged in any form of self mutilation or self destruction except when he died to the Law on the Cross. Jesus nailed the Law to the Cross because he was that Law. The Law died with him. How is that for identity?
What were Jesus' limitations? Jesus explains: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men 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. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Was Jesus “least in the kingdom”? No. Jesus' life was completely circumscribed by the Law. He was not “least in the kingdom of heaven” by any means. He is much more. He is “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 19:16) That is the title engraved on his thigh.
Clint says Jesus “subtracts from Old Testament teaching (Matthew 5.31-32).” This is likely the scripture in which Clint is really trying to make his point. Clint believes that Moses allowed divorce for virtually any reason, except for fornication. But, according to Clint and brother Battey, in the case of fornication, the person must always be executed. Clint virtually adopts the position of Hillel (except for the exception part). Hillel allowed divorce for fornication too. But Jesus was more conservative than both Moses and Hillel. Jesus only allowed divorce for fornication. Therefore, Jesus “subtracts from Old Testament teaching.” When Jesus subtracts from the Old Testament, he leaves the exception (according to Clint and brother Battey) available for Christians.
No Clint. Jesus subtracts from the “tradition of the Pharisees” and not the Old Testament. Clint and brother Battey constantly confuse and consistently conflate the problems Jesus had with the Pharisees to Jesus' supposed desire to subtract from, add to and simply reject the Old Testament. But Jesus had no such desire. Jesus specifically said in Matthew 5:17-20 that he had no such desire and that he would do no such thing. But brother Battey and Clint will not take Jesus' disclaimer (except in “token” form). They merely give his disclaimer and the constraints Jesus was working with “lip service.” They reduce Jesus' disclaimer to a mere inconvenience for them when they try to make their arguments.
We repeat. Jesus did not say that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness found in the Old Testament. Jesus was not comparing their righteousness with the Old Testament standard. Instead Jesus said that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees. Jesus was comparing against the false righteousness found in the scribes and the Pharisees. He was giving examples where the Pharisees went wrong. These were not examples of where the Old Testament went wrong. It is horribly wrong to equate the righteousness found in the Old Testament with the righteousness found in the scribes and the Pharisees. They are simply not the same thing.
The righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees was based upon their “oral traditions.” The “oral traditions” are not in the Old Testament. Jesus subtracts from the traditions. Brother Battey does not want to talk about the traditions because he supposes it is not even biblical to talk about the “traditions of the elders.” However it is biblical because Jesus speaks about it himself in Matthew 15, Mark 7, Matthew 23 and Matthew 5:21-48.
But the Pharisees had indeed subtracted from the Law of Moses. Jesus had not subtracted from the Law, but they had subtracted from the Law. And this is what Jesus was concerned about. Jesus was defending the Law against the traditions. Brother Battey and Clint do not recognize that Jesus was the supreme defender of the Law against the oral traditions. Therefore, they find themselves on the side of the Pharisees.
How had the Pharisees subtracted? Well they had eliminated the proper cause for a Jewish man to divorce his wife. Hillel had basically concluded that the Jewish man had access to “no fault” divorce. All the Jewish man had to do was to give his Jewish wife the proper “writing of divorcement.” And both Clint and brother Battey essentially agree.
However, Jesus said if the man practiced “no fault” divorce, he was causing his wife to “commit adultery.” This was not speculative Christian doctrine. This was something that was happening every single day among the Jews. That's why they were “A wicked and adulterous generation.” (Matthew 12:39)
But brother Clint and brother Battey have taken a position which makes it practically impossible for a Jewish man to violate the seventh commandment. It was practically impossible for a man to commit adultery. Therefore, Jesus was wrong to call them an “adulterous generation.” However, Jesus was right. Brother Battey and Clint are wrong because they have essentially aligned themselves with the Pharisees against Jesus. They just don't know that yet. Perhaps some day they will.
Brother Battey claims “The no-exception position ignores the problem of polygamy.” Jesus also ignored that problem. Brother Battey has a more serious problem. The exception was not intended for a woman. A Jewish woman could not initiate a divorce. She could not put her husband away for fornication. She could not give her Jewish husband a “Get.” But brother Battey and Clint both want the Christian woman to be able to divorce their husbands for fornication. But this is not found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9. We challenge them to find where Jesus said the woman could divorce her husband in any of these passages.
If Jesus addressed the problem of polygamy, he did it only indirectly. Jesus was talking about a man causing his wife to commit adultery by putting her away. This act also caused him to be involved in her adultery. He also committed adultery by causing her to commit adultery. She was “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.” In Matthew 19:9 and in Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus did not address the situation of a Jewish man keeping his current wife and getting himself another woman. He only addressed the problem of a man putting away his wife. This problem was not about a Jewish man having multiple wives.
Clint says that Jesus rejected the Law of Moses in Matthew 5:38-42. Jesus was not talking about “due process of the law” in these verses. He was speaking about taking personal and unlawful vengeance. Everything had to be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. The Jews did not have the right to take the Law into their own hands.
In this post, we have referred to some of the teachings of brother Clint and brother Battey because we strongly disagree with their teachings. We don't know them personally and have no particular ill will against them. In fact, we like Clint's web site very much. We do ask that Clint, as the moderator of this debate, will take a “head count” of those who agree with brother Battey's “humility theory” in “The Case of Joseph and Mary.” Perhaps they need remedial or comprehensive reading classes?
There is a difference between just reading and being able to comprehend what we read. To read successfully, it is necessary to make reasonable interpretations of the inferences and the implications that are always present in any set of passages. Brother Battey has made some interpretations about “The Case of Joseph and Mary” that are simply beyond the pale. Actually, our jaws dropped when we read his interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment