Friday, April 10, 2015
Review of the Kniffen/Battey Debate in Seminole
Brother George Battey commented on the “Open Study” in Seminole, Oklahoma in a cover letter for a proposition for a formal, four-night debate on the subject of divorce and remarriage, that he sent to some of us. He commented: “there were approximately 300 people present and the audience was evenly divided – half favoring the no-exception position and half favoring the exception position.” Brother Battey also commented in his cover letter, “I believe our study together proved two things: (a) people are interested and will attend an open study on the divorce question and (b) brethren can conduct themselves in honorable manner during such discussions.” He also said, “Those who commented felt that, although the study was good, the time allotted for the study was inadequate to fully cover the subject matter. Brother Clint DeFrance [sic] issued a challenge for a longer, four night debate to fully discuss the topic.”
Brother Battey did not give much time in this open study to “The Case of Joseph and Mary” like he had done in both of his pamphlets under the same title “'No-Exception' For Divorce (Is this true?).” His first pamphlet under this title was 44 pages long, and his revised pamphlet (after he noticed some additional arguments), was 68 pages long.
Brother Malcolm did point out to brother Battey that the “humility theory” in “The Case of Joseph and Mary” comes from Catholic doctrine. The Catholics, who always like to reverence and worship Mary, devised this “humility theory” which basically states that Joseph thought Mary was such a “highly favored” woman she was worthy of worship; and, therefore, Joseph wanted to divorce Mary. James Trayler, from Waco, wrote in an unpublished paper he gave to us at the debate: “Most likely such reasoning is rooted in Catholic doctrine. The works of Alphonso Salmeron (1515-1585) contributed greatly to Catholic theology which eventually lead to the veneration of Mary. It was his argument that Mary was far from ordinary. His commentary on the Joseph and Mary relationship (Matt 1:18-20) has Joseph in worshipful posture toward Mary. So much so, he wanted to put his betrothed away privately in view of his supposed unworthiness to [his] wife one who was with child by the Holy Ghost. Reasoning's such as this became the interpretive metrics by which Salmeron elevated the standing of the Blessed Virgin to that of an equal with Christ. In fact it was Salmeron who coined the term 'co-redemptrix' as it relates to the salvation of mankind (Ven. Mary of Agreda, Mystica Ciudad de Dios (Antwerp: H. and C. Verdussen, 1696), P. I, L. I, c.18, n. 274, p. 86b. Alfonso Salmeron, Commentarii in Evangelicam historicam).”
Brother Battey countered Malcolm's argument on “The Case of Joseph and Mary”, that the “humility theory” was rooted in Mary worship, with the idea that brother Malcolm's no-exception doctrine was also from the Catholics. According to brother Battey, the no-exception people do not get their doctrine from Paul in Romans 7:1-3, but from the Catholics and perhaps some others who preach a similar “doctrine of demons.” The idea that this is “Catholic Doctrine” is widespread. There are many Catholics who have at least given “lip service” to the idea of “no divorce” for any reason. The Catholics got this idea directly from the scriptures.
In a testimony to the belief of the Catholics on this doctrine, brother Clint De France wrote in the April, 2015 issue of the Old Paths Advocate in an article entitled “The Battey-Kniffen 'Open Bible Study' On Divorce and Remarriage”, that “This writer noticed two troublesome things about the 'No-Exception' Brethren. First, Malcom [sic] Kniffen claimed that the reason our congregations are divided over this issue is that people are getting divorced. The idea was that if there were no divorce we might be able to get past our different interpretations. But this is not what Kniffen's brethren practice. In the Philippines, divorce is illegal, and yet the No-Exception brethren have bitterly divided the Church in that country. This is terribly inconsistent. It appears bitterness is driving this division even more than doctrinal disagreement and that must change if we are ever to have unity.”
We might point out to brother Clint, who has admitted that “divorce is illegal” in the Philippines, that brethren should not promote divorce in a country where divorce is “illegal.” “No divorce” in the Philippines is both the “legal” and “historical” stance of that country. Perhaps we can thank the Catholics and the apostle Paul for this rather than good people like Raymond Stiner who has worked very hard in the Philippines and is to be commended. But who is “bitterly dividing” the church in the Philippines over divorce in that country? Not us, brother Clint. The Philippines are historically against divorce. Those who are promoting “illegal divorce” are the ones who are dividing the church over divorce in the Philippines. Accusing brethren, who do not promote divorce in the Philippines, of “bitterly” dividing the church over divorce will definitely not promote unity at home.
Brother Malcolm is right about the occurrence of divorce in this country. There was very little divorce and remarriage until after World War II. But married women were placed in the factories where they had ample opportunity to fraternize with those who were married. We are not personally arguing against all cases of the employment by women, but this condition in World War II took its toll on marriage. The horrors of war harmed the moral fabric of our country. Husbands were physically separated from their wives for many years. It caused divorce. This is just a historical fact.
After illegal divorce became widespread, people tried to “justify” their divorces and remarriages. Those seeking divorce were the ones causing the divisions in the churches. It is just like those seeking to change the communion service divided the church over the communion service. Before people sought to legitimize divorce, there was much more peace in the churches (and in the country) on this subject.
Just look at what divorce has done for our country and its churches. There is no statistical difference between divorces for believers and nonbelievers. We do not understand why divorce should be promoted by our brethren, as if divorce needs any promotion in our country where divorce has obviously overrun and ruined many families. Countless millions of children have been violently torn away from their parents. America has no reason to promote it. We shall likely be “vomited out” of the land because of divorce the way it is. Divorce is causing untold problems. This is one American “export” the Philippines can do without. Do we want the Phillipines to have the same problems over divorce that we are having? Putting our own personal lives and our own unhistorical and questionable doctrines ahead of the unity of the church is what is driving division in the churches.
Brother Battey's argument on “The Case of Joseph and Mary” would have Joseph causing his own “innocent” wife, Mary, to be in danger of committing adultery. He being a “just man” was willing to cause Mary to “commit adultery” because she was “highly favored”? What did Jesus say about this? Jesus said: “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” (Matthew 5:32) It seems ironic that Jesus was stating a rule that is so very applicable to his own Jewish mother.
Brother Battey, Clint (and others) would like to remove the applicability of Jesus' statement to his own mother in “The Case of Joseph and Mary.” Therefore, they have basically adopted the position of the Pharisees, and agree with the Pharisees in Matthew 5:31, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.” They believe in “no default” divorce for the Jewish man except in the case of “fornication.” Fornication always requires the death penalty. However, we made brother Battey confess that his absolute statement was wrong, and that fornication does not always require execution. (See Leviticus 19:20) He admitted that this was an “exception to the rule.” We have pointed out in previous posts that a “bond woman” does not have the same marital status as a “free woman.” Perhaps he will believe us now?
Case law indicates that Joseph did not have to fulfill the condition of bringing an evil name upon Mary. But brother Battey will not recognize conditions in case law. All that is necessary, under the law according to brother Battey, is to give the woman the proper “writing of divorcement” or have her executed in the case of fornication. Brother Malcolm correctly stated that Josesph did not have to start a process against Mary. But if Joseph had started a process, it would have been carried out by the elders. So we have a new exception. Divorce is allowable, under the law, except for fornication. Brother Battey has turned this issue completely inside out. We never know what to expect next.
Brother Battey was appropriately asked in the question and answer session if Jesus' authoritative teaching (Matthew 7:29) was not due to the “manner” in which Jesus taught them in the Sermon on the Mount. Brother Battey exclaimed the Jews taught their people just like we do. They basically quoted from the scriptures just like we do. Moses said this and Moses said that (almost book, chapter and verse except those handy references didn't yet exist).
Brother Battey does not seem to be familiar with the manner in which the Pharisees taught their people. But this is understandable because he doesn't want to even recognize the rabbis. He is not historically oriented on this subject. He just wants to know what the Bible says. “Let the Bible Speak.” Therefore, it is not surprising that he cannot describe the Rabbinical Method. We advise brother Battey to get himself a copy of the Mishnah, if he does not already have this extra-biblical source, and read where rabbi so and so said this and rabbi so and so said that. Practically every statement made in the Mishnah is prefaced by what some rabbi said. The rabbis didn't merely quote Moses. Mostly they quoted each other. They almost exclusively quoted Jewish authorities. It was called the “tradition of the elders.” It was not the commandments of God. Matthew 15 and Mark 7 show us that Jesus had problems with the traditions of the Pharisees versus the “commandment of God.” But brother Battey does not want to hear about such traditions. But he admits the tradition of the Pharisees is a biblical subject. Jesus did not have a problem with the Law of Moses. Jesus was exactly right when he said in the Sermon on the Mount “Ye have heard.” They knew what Jesus meant when he used that “politically incorrect” expression to refer to the Rabbinical Method. And it wasn't just a matter of Jewish literacy among the common people either.
It would be a “fallacy of composition” to take what Jesus commanded of the Jewish leper (to offer the legal gift according to the Law of Moses in Matthew 8:4), and then conclude that everything Jesus commanded thereafter pertained to the Law of Moses. We cannot extrapolate a single commandment to the leper into a general rule about all of Jesus' commandments. We cannot take the part (command to the leper) and make it pertain to the whole (Gospels entirely consisted of commandments of the Law). But this is the kind of “fallacy of composition” the exception brethren want us to make when they think they have discovered a single Gospel command.
Brother Malcolm correctly pointed out that the rich young ruler in Matthew 19 was commanded by Jesus to “keep the commandments” of the Law of Moses to inherit eternal life. But when brother Battey thinks he can find a “new commandment” (John 13:34, Matthew 18:20) which prophetically pertains to the Gospel, or does not destroy the Law (like love), he jumps to the blanket conclusion that every commandment Jesus gave pertains to the Gospel. (This includes Matthew 19:9.) He is looking for a “simple hermeneutic.” Like Clint, he is looking for that certain “false dichotomy” or general rule that will make the interpretation of Matthew 19:9 simple and automatic. He is looking for that “either or” and the mutually exclusive disjunction rule to use as a general and perhaps an almighty divining rod. The Gospels are either the “New Testament” or they are the “Old Testament.” But this disjunctive rule won't work as a general rule or a “simple hermeneutic.”
Brother Battey is looking for another distinctive “but I say” clincher. However, this “but I say” clincher has proven to be wrong because Jesus had a problem with the Pharisees in the Sermon on the Mount (not the Law of Moses). Jesus had a problem with what they had heard from the Pharisees in the Synagogue. But if brother Battey were healed of his leprosy (if he had leprosy) would he have to obey the commandment Jesus gave to the Jewish leper and offer his gift according to the Law? No. Brother Battey would rightly conclude that Jesus gave this commandment to a Jewish leper under the Law. He knows he couldn't obey this command even if he would. He knows that context is always very important (except in the case of Matthew 19:9).
But we do have a “simple hermeneutic” about Jesus' teaching. "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2:22) Jesus did no destructive teaching. He never blasphemed. He was not a hypocrite. We use this rule as a guide throughout the Gospels. Once we realize what sin is, then we do not accuse Jesus of sinning EVER. Jesus thought one of the worst sins was hypocrisy. Constantly getting Jesus into situations where Jesus accuses the Pharisees of sinning (and then sins himself) simply cannot be tolerated. Jesus was no hypocrite. He never used doublespeak.
The scheme of redemption required Jesus to be a perfect sacrifice. Jesus did no sin is one of the few absolute and categorical statements that we make and that we accept about Jesus. For example, Moses said in Deuteronomy 4:2, “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.” This is a good definition of obedience. This would keep a Jew from sinning. Therefore, we do not accuse Jesus of adding to, subtracting from or outright rejecting the Law of Moses (like Clint De France did in his advertisement of the “Open Study” in Seminole, Oklahoma). One definition of sin is: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4) Brother Battey and Clint do not seem to take this definition of sin (missing the mark and acting unlawfully) very seriously. But we do.
Clint accuses brother Malcolm of stretching his analogy when brother Malcolm compares marriage to the relationship of Jesus with his church. (Ephesians 5) But what about stretching the analogy of making a will before you die? First, you make your will (while you are alive) and then the will becomes effective (after you die). Therefore, Jesus gave Matthew 19:9 before he died and then it became effective after he died?
Does this general rule even pertain to Matthew 19:9? Isn't this a “fallacy of decomposition” concerning giving a will and executing a will? In Matthew 19:9, the Pharisees asked a present tense question and they got a present tense answer just like we should expect. But we heard a lot of equivocation from brother Battey about what the definition of is, is. Brother Battey says the disciples of Jesus all understood what the Law is. They understood that Jesus was speaking about the future because Jesus contradicted the Law. They recognized it was a contradiction. Therefore, they knew Jesus could not be talking about the current Law and was talking about the future kingdom law even though his disciples exclaimed “it is not good to marry.” They exclaimed the present tense in a future sense of the word according to brother Battey. If they all understood when someone was contradicting the law on this issue, then why did the Pharisees ask their question in the first place? Why were there two schools of thought on the subject? Why did the disciples exclaim “if the case of the man be so with his wife it is not good to marry” instead of “it will not be good to marry”? (Matthew 19:10)
There is a problem with stretching the analogy of Jesus giving his will and then executing it later. Jesus said: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:12-13) Did Jesus give a partial will before he died? Is it normal to give a partial will before you die? Isn't this stretching the analogy of a last will and testament procedure?
But Jesus did not tell his disciples everything about the kingdom while he was alive. Jesus left much of that to the Holy Ghost. Jesus also said to his disciples: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” (Matthew 16:19-20) Were the disciples of Jesus both legislators and executors of his will? (This was a very good question by brother Don Bounds from Bloomington, Indiana.) The disciples legislated many things Jesus had not given them in the Gospels. At other times they did not legislate at all. For example, Malcolm pointed out the disciples of Jesus did not bind “foot washing” even though Jesus washed their feet. (John 13:8-9) Therefore, what practices and examples were bound? Was “foot washing” bound by the example and the command of Jesus? Brother Malcolm correctly pointed out that many concepts in the “Law of Moses” were simply “brought over”, borrowed and placed in the New Testament. They are pretty much “timeless or eternal” truths under any law.
Brother Battey makes much out of Paul's expression “the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 7. He infers Paul got some of the commandments by the Lord from some other avenue than by divine inspiration (such as Jesus' preaching ministry). However, Paul was not one of the original apostles, and he did not accompany Jesus from the baptism of John. (Acts 1:22) Malcolm correctly quotes from Galatians 1:11-12, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Therefore, it is wrong to make too much out of “the Lord” expression in 1 Corinthians 7.
Brother Battey plays “fast and loose” with his implications in the “Open Study.” He likes to insert implications where there are no such implications. For example, Jesus agrees with the Pharisees and disagrees with Moses. (This is an unlikely scenario. In fact, it is usually the opposite. Jesus disagrees with the Pharisees and agrees with Moses. Jesus was not an adversary of Moses. He was a champion of the Law. But Jesus was an adversary of the Pharisees. Brother Battey constantly chooses the wrong enemies for Jesus.)
Brother Battey has Jesus agreeing with his enemies, the Pharisees, and disagreeing with Moses in Matthew 19:8. “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives [for every cause]: but from the beginning it was not so.” There is no such implication in this passage. This implication exists only in the mind of brother Battey. The “every cause” position was the position of the school of Hillel (not Moses). Jesus was just answering why Moses gave them a writing of divorcement. We could more appropriately have implied [for unchastity] but Jesus did not make that implication either. But Jesus explicitly states it was for unchastity or fornication in verse 9. No implication is necessary. Brother Battey defines “some uncleanness” or “matter of nakedness” as “every cause.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) How brother Battey gets “every cause” out of “a matter of nakedness” is strange. How can he get many causes out of one cause?
In Deuteronomy 24:3, the secondary cause listed for divorce (“hate”), is a more likely candidate for “every cause” than the primary cause for divorce (“matter of nakedness”) listed in Deuteronomy 24:1. A man can control the “putting away” for a “matter of nakedness.” But he cannot control why the second husband puts his former wife away. This is purely descriptive of what is likely to happen and is not prescriptive of something which God necessarily approves.
We do not believe that the woman had a right to become the next man's wife. The term “she may go” used in the King James Version is often translated “and she go” in many translations (even in the King James Version in Jeremiah 3:1). This is descriptive of what the woman is just likely to do as Matthew 5:32 is descriptive of what the “innocent woman” is likely to do after she is put away. She is “caused” to commit adultery. Furthermore, her original husband may not take her back “after that she is defiled.” (Deuteronomy 24:4) Moses states in Leviticus 18:20, “Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.” In Numbers, 5:13, Moses speaks about the Sotah ritual. He says: “And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner.” Therefore, in Deuteronomy 24:4, a man may not take a wife back who has been “adulterated” or defiled. If an innocent wife can be defiled (Matthew 5:32) by a second marriage, then why cannot a guilty wife also be defiled by a second marriage?
Brother Allen Baily, in the question and answer session, also inserts an implication where there is no such implication. Mark 10:12 states: “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Brother Baily interprets this passage to mean a woman has a right to initiate a divorce. In fact, he uses the word “initiate.” Jesus denied this right. When Jesus denied a Jewish woman the right to divorce, he did not imply that a Christian woman has a right to initiate a divorce. No implied right to any exception is implied or can even be inferred from his passage. But some Jewish women, such a Herodias, were claiming the right to divorce. Jesus was acknowledging this trend because the Jews were being assimilated.
Fred Kirbo recognized the value of Jewish history on the subject of “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” many years ago. He said in his sermon on “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage”: “Now friends, look here! There were two schools of thought going at that time (and they were red hot!). There was the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. They were divided on the very subject we're talking about right now: the marriage question. Some of them were teaching the Law of Moses allowed them to divorce for every cause (that was the school of Hillel), while those of Shammai taught that they could only divorce for the one cause of fornication. Now, you can easily see what school Jesus goes with here; the school of Shammai. Why, there was a great division on the marriage question even before you and I ever thought about arguing the question. Now, I want to tell you something and I want you to take it home with you. This came from a brother up north just a few days ago. I thought that this was good thinking and just good sound sense. He said, 'You know, long before we ever studied the marriage question, they were having trouble over it back yonder under the Law of Moses, whether they could divorce for one cause or for any cause. Now, since there are so many hard things about the Law of Moses on the marriage question (it even caused trouble among themselves; they couldn't get together on it back there), why don't we try to find out what side the Lord was on, then we'll settle this thing.' On whose side was the Lord? Whom did he favor? Since they couldn't agree back there when they were arguing the question, let's find out from Jesus. Let's find out which was right: whether they could divorce for one cause or for every cause. (And he ought to know, brother! If Jesus doesn't know, I don't know of anyone who does!) They had put the question to him, 'Is it lawful?' And Jesus replied, 'There is but one cause: Fornication!' Now, that's going to save a lot of argument! That's going to save the trouble of going back into the Old Testament Law and digging around back there...studying polygamy, and David's wives, and Jacob's wife, and all of these many different things that you and I, Brother Buffington, used to study so much about. If you want to save a lot of time and trouble, all you have to do is ask Jesus, and he'll tell you! He said that there wasn't but one cause. Now, we could say, 'Well, maybe he didn't know,' and then head back over there and go to digging up all of these many difficult cases. But you know, I'm just pretty well satisfied to take Jesus at his word and say that he's right about it.”
All we can add to what Fred said here is “amen.” We listened a lot to Fred's sermons growing up. He was interesting, homey, plain, funny and sometimes even crude. He was unique. We usually remembered his sermons. More than this, we noted his every word. We don't worship him now, like we did when we were young, but he was a good man. Fred was one of our childhood heroes. Several times Fred referred to us as his “Timothy” with a big smile on his face. It was a special treat and an honor.
Some have tried to imply that Fred was “not his own man.” If brother Homer Gay had lived, they say, Fred would have merely “agreed to disagree.” Some claimed our grandfather, H. E. Robertson caused Fred to get off the fence and to make trouble over this issue. But those of us who knew Fred disagree. Fred wanted to go to heaven. He said this many times. Fred also knew if he ever “got off the fence” on this divorce issue he would get himself in trouble. He would pay the price. It is reported that he said he would have to get himself, “a cow, a sow and a plow and go to farming” because he knew he would no longer be the popular fellow that he once was just by taking a stand on the conservative side of the marriage question. But he also knew he must stand for tempered reason on this subject against the coming tides of divorce. He sometimes commented that he felt like he was standing in the sea trying to hold back the tide.
Fred knew about the history of Shammai and Hillel. He didn't discount their history or their debate like some do. He knew Jesus wasn't operating in a “historical vacuum.” There were good reasons for Jesus to say what he said. “But we guess that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” Fred was not of that sort.
Fred knew about the debate between Shammai and Hillel, but he never reported the original source. Therefore, we went to ask the local rabbi about the source of the debate in the early seventies. We figured the local rabbi ought to know. He did. As we surveyed, with some perplexity, the volumes of Hebrew writings (oral traditions) at the back of the synagogue, the Jewish Rabbi gave us the Jewish answer we had been searching for in his ancient Jewish writings. The source of the debate was in the third division of the Mishnah (Women) in Gittin 9:10. We could not read the Hebrew writings, but we remembered the source. It was not from Adam Clarke (or any other Christian commentator). Christian commentators mentioned Shammai and Hillel often enough but they never seemed to cite the original source. It was frustrating. But this was the original source, straight from a Jewish rabbi and his Rabbinical Traditions.
So, this “Goy” left the synagogue with a smile on his face. It was before the age of the internet. Now there was no excuse to be ignorant of this historical debate. This knowledge was hard won in those days, but it is easy to find on the internet today. The rabbi was actually an unbiased observer who was merely curious as to why some Goy would be interested in some of his ancient Jewish traditions. But his traditions told us that Jesus was not operating in a historical vacuum. Jesus addressed real issues. He was not just spouting some new Christian doctrine. Therefore, Jesus was a real historical figure. Unknown to the rabbi, it increased our faith in a certain Jewish Messiah who knew very well his Jewish roots.
Brother Battey did not give much time in this open study to “The Case of Joseph and Mary” like he had done in both of his pamphlets under the same title “'No-Exception' For Divorce (Is this true?).” His first pamphlet under this title was 44 pages long, and his revised pamphlet (after he noticed some additional arguments), was 68 pages long.
Brother Malcolm did point out to brother Battey that the “humility theory” in “The Case of Joseph and Mary” comes from Catholic doctrine. The Catholics, who always like to reverence and worship Mary, devised this “humility theory” which basically states that Joseph thought Mary was such a “highly favored” woman she was worthy of worship; and, therefore, Joseph wanted to divorce Mary. James Trayler, from Waco, wrote in an unpublished paper he gave to us at the debate: “Most likely such reasoning is rooted in Catholic doctrine. The works of Alphonso Salmeron (1515-1585) contributed greatly to Catholic theology which eventually lead to the veneration of Mary. It was his argument that Mary was far from ordinary. His commentary on the Joseph and Mary relationship (Matt 1:18-20) has Joseph in worshipful posture toward Mary. So much so, he wanted to put his betrothed away privately in view of his supposed unworthiness to [his] wife one who was with child by the Holy Ghost. Reasoning's such as this became the interpretive metrics by which Salmeron elevated the standing of the Blessed Virgin to that of an equal with Christ. In fact it was Salmeron who coined the term 'co-redemptrix' as it relates to the salvation of mankind (Ven. Mary of Agreda, Mystica Ciudad de Dios (Antwerp: H. and C. Verdussen, 1696), P. I, L. I, c.18, n. 274, p. 86b. Alfonso Salmeron, Commentarii in Evangelicam historicam).”
Brother Battey countered Malcolm's argument on “The Case of Joseph and Mary”, that the “humility theory” was rooted in Mary worship, with the idea that brother Malcolm's no-exception doctrine was also from the Catholics. According to brother Battey, the no-exception people do not get their doctrine from Paul in Romans 7:1-3, but from the Catholics and perhaps some others who preach a similar “doctrine of demons.” The idea that this is “Catholic Doctrine” is widespread. There are many Catholics who have at least given “lip service” to the idea of “no divorce” for any reason. The Catholics got this idea directly from the scriptures.
In a testimony to the belief of the Catholics on this doctrine, brother Clint De France wrote in the April, 2015 issue of the Old Paths Advocate in an article entitled “The Battey-Kniffen 'Open Bible Study' On Divorce and Remarriage”, that “This writer noticed two troublesome things about the 'No-Exception' Brethren. First, Malcom [sic] Kniffen claimed that the reason our congregations are divided over this issue is that people are getting divorced. The idea was that if there were no divorce we might be able to get past our different interpretations. But this is not what Kniffen's brethren practice. In the Philippines, divorce is illegal, and yet the No-Exception brethren have bitterly divided the Church in that country. This is terribly inconsistent. It appears bitterness is driving this division even more than doctrinal disagreement and that must change if we are ever to have unity.”
We might point out to brother Clint, who has admitted that “divorce is illegal” in the Philippines, that brethren should not promote divorce in a country where divorce is “illegal.” “No divorce” in the Philippines is both the “legal” and “historical” stance of that country. Perhaps we can thank the Catholics and the apostle Paul for this rather than good people like Raymond Stiner who has worked very hard in the Philippines and is to be commended. But who is “bitterly dividing” the church in the Philippines over divorce in that country? Not us, brother Clint. The Philippines are historically against divorce. Those who are promoting “illegal divorce” are the ones who are dividing the church over divorce in the Philippines. Accusing brethren, who do not promote divorce in the Philippines, of “bitterly” dividing the church over divorce will definitely not promote unity at home.
Brother Malcolm is right about the occurrence of divorce in this country. There was very little divorce and remarriage until after World War II. But married women were placed in the factories where they had ample opportunity to fraternize with those who were married. We are not personally arguing against all cases of the employment by women, but this condition in World War II took its toll on marriage. The horrors of war harmed the moral fabric of our country. Husbands were physically separated from their wives for many years. It caused divorce. This is just a historical fact.
After illegal divorce became widespread, people tried to “justify” their divorces and remarriages. Those seeking divorce were the ones causing the divisions in the churches. It is just like those seeking to change the communion service divided the church over the communion service. Before people sought to legitimize divorce, there was much more peace in the churches (and in the country) on this subject.
Just look at what divorce has done for our country and its churches. There is no statistical difference between divorces for believers and nonbelievers. We do not understand why divorce should be promoted by our brethren, as if divorce needs any promotion in our country where divorce has obviously overrun and ruined many families. Countless millions of children have been violently torn away from their parents. America has no reason to promote it. We shall likely be “vomited out” of the land because of divorce the way it is. Divorce is causing untold problems. This is one American “export” the Philippines can do without. Do we want the Phillipines to have the same problems over divorce that we are having? Putting our own personal lives and our own unhistorical and questionable doctrines ahead of the unity of the church is what is driving division in the churches.
Brother Battey's argument on “The Case of Joseph and Mary” would have Joseph causing his own “innocent” wife, Mary, to be in danger of committing adultery. He being a “just man” was willing to cause Mary to “commit adultery” because she was “highly favored”? What did Jesus say about this? Jesus said: “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” (Matthew 5:32) It seems ironic that Jesus was stating a rule that is so very applicable to his own Jewish mother.
Brother Battey, Clint (and others) would like to remove the applicability of Jesus' statement to his own mother in “The Case of Joseph and Mary.” Therefore, they have basically adopted the position of the Pharisees, and agree with the Pharisees in Matthew 5:31, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.” They believe in “no default” divorce for the Jewish man except in the case of “fornication.” Fornication always requires the death penalty. However, we made brother Battey confess that his absolute statement was wrong, and that fornication does not always require execution. (See Leviticus 19:20) He admitted that this was an “exception to the rule.” We have pointed out in previous posts that a “bond woman” does not have the same marital status as a “free woman.” Perhaps he will believe us now?
Case law indicates that Joseph did not have to fulfill the condition of bringing an evil name upon Mary. But brother Battey will not recognize conditions in case law. All that is necessary, under the law according to brother Battey, is to give the woman the proper “writing of divorcement” or have her executed in the case of fornication. Brother Malcolm correctly stated that Josesph did not have to start a process against Mary. But if Joseph had started a process, it would have been carried out by the elders. So we have a new exception. Divorce is allowable, under the law, except for fornication. Brother Battey has turned this issue completely inside out. We never know what to expect next.
Brother Battey was appropriately asked in the question and answer session if Jesus' authoritative teaching (Matthew 7:29) was not due to the “manner” in which Jesus taught them in the Sermon on the Mount. Brother Battey exclaimed the Jews taught their people just like we do. They basically quoted from the scriptures just like we do. Moses said this and Moses said that (almost book, chapter and verse except those handy references didn't yet exist).
Brother Battey does not seem to be familiar with the manner in which the Pharisees taught their people. But this is understandable because he doesn't want to even recognize the rabbis. He is not historically oriented on this subject. He just wants to know what the Bible says. “Let the Bible Speak.” Therefore, it is not surprising that he cannot describe the Rabbinical Method. We advise brother Battey to get himself a copy of the Mishnah, if he does not already have this extra-biblical source, and read where rabbi so and so said this and rabbi so and so said that. Practically every statement made in the Mishnah is prefaced by what some rabbi said. The rabbis didn't merely quote Moses. Mostly they quoted each other. They almost exclusively quoted Jewish authorities. It was called the “tradition of the elders.” It was not the commandments of God. Matthew 15 and Mark 7 show us that Jesus had problems with the traditions of the Pharisees versus the “commandment of God.” But brother Battey does not want to hear about such traditions. But he admits the tradition of the Pharisees is a biblical subject. Jesus did not have a problem with the Law of Moses. Jesus was exactly right when he said in the Sermon on the Mount “Ye have heard.” They knew what Jesus meant when he used that “politically incorrect” expression to refer to the Rabbinical Method. And it wasn't just a matter of Jewish literacy among the common people either.
It would be a “fallacy of composition” to take what Jesus commanded of the Jewish leper (to offer the legal gift according to the Law of Moses in Matthew 8:4), and then conclude that everything Jesus commanded thereafter pertained to the Law of Moses. We cannot extrapolate a single commandment to the leper into a general rule about all of Jesus' commandments. We cannot take the part (command to the leper) and make it pertain to the whole (Gospels entirely consisted of commandments of the Law). But this is the kind of “fallacy of composition” the exception brethren want us to make when they think they have discovered a single Gospel command.
Brother Malcolm correctly pointed out that the rich young ruler in Matthew 19 was commanded by Jesus to “keep the commandments” of the Law of Moses to inherit eternal life. But when brother Battey thinks he can find a “new commandment” (John 13:34, Matthew 18:20) which prophetically pertains to the Gospel, or does not destroy the Law (like love), he jumps to the blanket conclusion that every commandment Jesus gave pertains to the Gospel. (This includes Matthew 19:9.) He is looking for a “simple hermeneutic.” Like Clint, he is looking for that certain “false dichotomy” or general rule that will make the interpretation of Matthew 19:9 simple and automatic. He is looking for that “either or” and the mutually exclusive disjunction rule to use as a general and perhaps an almighty divining rod. The Gospels are either the “New Testament” or they are the “Old Testament.” But this disjunctive rule won't work as a general rule or a “simple hermeneutic.”
Brother Battey is looking for another distinctive “but I say” clincher. However, this “but I say” clincher has proven to be wrong because Jesus had a problem with the Pharisees in the Sermon on the Mount (not the Law of Moses). Jesus had a problem with what they had heard from the Pharisees in the Synagogue. But if brother Battey were healed of his leprosy (if he had leprosy) would he have to obey the commandment Jesus gave to the Jewish leper and offer his gift according to the Law? No. Brother Battey would rightly conclude that Jesus gave this commandment to a Jewish leper under the Law. He knows he couldn't obey this command even if he would. He knows that context is always very important (except in the case of Matthew 19:9).
But we do have a “simple hermeneutic” about Jesus' teaching. "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2:22) Jesus did no destructive teaching. He never blasphemed. He was not a hypocrite. We use this rule as a guide throughout the Gospels. Once we realize what sin is, then we do not accuse Jesus of sinning EVER. Jesus thought one of the worst sins was hypocrisy. Constantly getting Jesus into situations where Jesus accuses the Pharisees of sinning (and then sins himself) simply cannot be tolerated. Jesus was no hypocrite. He never used doublespeak.
The scheme of redemption required Jesus to be a perfect sacrifice. Jesus did no sin is one of the few absolute and categorical statements that we make and that we accept about Jesus. For example, Moses said in Deuteronomy 4:2, “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.” This is a good definition of obedience. This would keep a Jew from sinning. Therefore, we do not accuse Jesus of adding to, subtracting from or outright rejecting the Law of Moses (like Clint De France did in his advertisement of the “Open Study” in Seminole, Oklahoma). One definition of sin is: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4) Brother Battey and Clint do not seem to take this definition of sin (missing the mark and acting unlawfully) very seriously. But we do.
Clint accuses brother Malcolm of stretching his analogy when brother Malcolm compares marriage to the relationship of Jesus with his church. (Ephesians 5) But what about stretching the analogy of making a will before you die? First, you make your will (while you are alive) and then the will becomes effective (after you die). Therefore, Jesus gave Matthew 19:9 before he died and then it became effective after he died?
Does this general rule even pertain to Matthew 19:9? Isn't this a “fallacy of decomposition” concerning giving a will and executing a will? In Matthew 19:9, the Pharisees asked a present tense question and they got a present tense answer just like we should expect. But we heard a lot of equivocation from brother Battey about what the definition of is, is. Brother Battey says the disciples of Jesus all understood what the Law is. They understood that Jesus was speaking about the future because Jesus contradicted the Law. They recognized it was a contradiction. Therefore, they knew Jesus could not be talking about the current Law and was talking about the future kingdom law even though his disciples exclaimed “it is not good to marry.” They exclaimed the present tense in a future sense of the word according to brother Battey. If they all understood when someone was contradicting the law on this issue, then why did the Pharisees ask their question in the first place? Why were there two schools of thought on the subject? Why did the disciples exclaim “if the case of the man be so with his wife it is not good to marry” instead of “it will not be good to marry”? (Matthew 19:10)
There is a problem with stretching the analogy of Jesus giving his will and then executing it later. Jesus said: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:12-13) Did Jesus give a partial will before he died? Is it normal to give a partial will before you die? Isn't this stretching the analogy of a last will and testament procedure?
But Jesus did not tell his disciples everything about the kingdom while he was alive. Jesus left much of that to the Holy Ghost. Jesus also said to his disciples: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” (Matthew 16:19-20) Were the disciples of Jesus both legislators and executors of his will? (This was a very good question by brother Don Bounds from Bloomington, Indiana.) The disciples legislated many things Jesus had not given them in the Gospels. At other times they did not legislate at all. For example, Malcolm pointed out the disciples of Jesus did not bind “foot washing” even though Jesus washed their feet. (John 13:8-9) Therefore, what practices and examples were bound? Was “foot washing” bound by the example and the command of Jesus? Brother Malcolm correctly pointed out that many concepts in the “Law of Moses” were simply “brought over”, borrowed and placed in the New Testament. They are pretty much “timeless or eternal” truths under any law.
Brother Battey makes much out of Paul's expression “the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 7. He infers Paul got some of the commandments by the Lord from some other avenue than by divine inspiration (such as Jesus' preaching ministry). However, Paul was not one of the original apostles, and he did not accompany Jesus from the baptism of John. (Acts 1:22) Malcolm correctly quotes from Galatians 1:11-12, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Therefore, it is wrong to make too much out of “the Lord” expression in 1 Corinthians 7.
Brother Battey plays “fast and loose” with his implications in the “Open Study.” He likes to insert implications where there are no such implications. For example, Jesus agrees with the Pharisees and disagrees with Moses. (This is an unlikely scenario. In fact, it is usually the opposite. Jesus disagrees with the Pharisees and agrees with Moses. Jesus was not an adversary of Moses. He was a champion of the Law. But Jesus was an adversary of the Pharisees. Brother Battey constantly chooses the wrong enemies for Jesus.)
Brother Battey has Jesus agreeing with his enemies, the Pharisees, and disagreeing with Moses in Matthew 19:8. “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives [for every cause]: but from the beginning it was not so.” There is no such implication in this passage. This implication exists only in the mind of brother Battey. The “every cause” position was the position of the school of Hillel (not Moses). Jesus was just answering why Moses gave them a writing of divorcement. We could more appropriately have implied [for unchastity] but Jesus did not make that implication either. But Jesus explicitly states it was for unchastity or fornication in verse 9. No implication is necessary. Brother Battey defines “some uncleanness” or “matter of nakedness” as “every cause.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) How brother Battey gets “every cause” out of “a matter of nakedness” is strange. How can he get many causes out of one cause?
In Deuteronomy 24:3, the secondary cause listed for divorce (“hate”), is a more likely candidate for “every cause” than the primary cause for divorce (“matter of nakedness”) listed in Deuteronomy 24:1. A man can control the “putting away” for a “matter of nakedness.” But he cannot control why the second husband puts his former wife away. This is purely descriptive of what is likely to happen and is not prescriptive of something which God necessarily approves.
We do not believe that the woman had a right to become the next man's wife. The term “she may go” used in the King James Version is often translated “and she go” in many translations (even in the King James Version in Jeremiah 3:1). This is descriptive of what the woman is just likely to do as Matthew 5:32 is descriptive of what the “innocent woman” is likely to do after she is put away. She is “caused” to commit adultery. Furthermore, her original husband may not take her back “after that she is defiled.” (Deuteronomy 24:4) Moses states in Leviticus 18:20, “Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.” In Numbers, 5:13, Moses speaks about the Sotah ritual. He says: “And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner.” Therefore, in Deuteronomy 24:4, a man may not take a wife back who has been “adulterated” or defiled. If an innocent wife can be defiled (Matthew 5:32) by a second marriage, then why cannot a guilty wife also be defiled by a second marriage?
Brother Allen Baily, in the question and answer session, also inserts an implication where there is no such implication. Mark 10:12 states: “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Brother Baily interprets this passage to mean a woman has a right to initiate a divorce. In fact, he uses the word “initiate.” Jesus denied this right. When Jesus denied a Jewish woman the right to divorce, he did not imply that a Christian woman has a right to initiate a divorce. No implied right to any exception is implied or can even be inferred from his passage. But some Jewish women, such a Herodias, were claiming the right to divorce. Jesus was acknowledging this trend because the Jews were being assimilated.
Fred Kirbo recognized the value of Jewish history on the subject of “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” many years ago. He said in his sermon on “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage”: “Now friends, look here! There were two schools of thought going at that time (and they were red hot!). There was the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. They were divided on the very subject we're talking about right now: the marriage question. Some of them were teaching the Law of Moses allowed them to divorce for every cause (that was the school of Hillel), while those of Shammai taught that they could only divorce for the one cause of fornication. Now, you can easily see what school Jesus goes with here; the school of Shammai. Why, there was a great division on the marriage question even before you and I ever thought about arguing the question. Now, I want to tell you something and I want you to take it home with you. This came from a brother up north just a few days ago. I thought that this was good thinking and just good sound sense. He said, 'You know, long before we ever studied the marriage question, they were having trouble over it back yonder under the Law of Moses, whether they could divorce for one cause or for any cause. Now, since there are so many hard things about the Law of Moses on the marriage question (it even caused trouble among themselves; they couldn't get together on it back there), why don't we try to find out what side the Lord was on, then we'll settle this thing.' On whose side was the Lord? Whom did he favor? Since they couldn't agree back there when they were arguing the question, let's find out from Jesus. Let's find out which was right: whether they could divorce for one cause or for every cause. (And he ought to know, brother! If Jesus doesn't know, I don't know of anyone who does!) They had put the question to him, 'Is it lawful?' And Jesus replied, 'There is but one cause: Fornication!' Now, that's going to save a lot of argument! That's going to save the trouble of going back into the Old Testament Law and digging around back there...studying polygamy, and David's wives, and Jacob's wife, and all of these many different things that you and I, Brother Buffington, used to study so much about. If you want to save a lot of time and trouble, all you have to do is ask Jesus, and he'll tell you! He said that there wasn't but one cause. Now, we could say, 'Well, maybe he didn't know,' and then head back over there and go to digging up all of these many difficult cases. But you know, I'm just pretty well satisfied to take Jesus at his word and say that he's right about it.”
All we can add to what Fred said here is “amen.” We listened a lot to Fred's sermons growing up. He was interesting, homey, plain, funny and sometimes even crude. He was unique. We usually remembered his sermons. More than this, we noted his every word. We don't worship him now, like we did when we were young, but he was a good man. Fred was one of our childhood heroes. Several times Fred referred to us as his “Timothy” with a big smile on his face. It was a special treat and an honor.
Some have tried to imply that Fred was “not his own man.” If brother Homer Gay had lived, they say, Fred would have merely “agreed to disagree.” Some claimed our grandfather, H. E. Robertson caused Fred to get off the fence and to make trouble over this issue. But those of us who knew Fred disagree. Fred wanted to go to heaven. He said this many times. Fred also knew if he ever “got off the fence” on this divorce issue he would get himself in trouble. He would pay the price. It is reported that he said he would have to get himself, “a cow, a sow and a plow and go to farming” because he knew he would no longer be the popular fellow that he once was just by taking a stand on the conservative side of the marriage question. But he also knew he must stand for tempered reason on this subject against the coming tides of divorce. He sometimes commented that he felt like he was standing in the sea trying to hold back the tide.
Fred knew about the history of Shammai and Hillel. He didn't discount their history or their debate like some do. He knew Jesus wasn't operating in a “historical vacuum.” There were good reasons for Jesus to say what he said. “But we guess that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” Fred was not of that sort.
Fred knew about the debate between Shammai and Hillel, but he never reported the original source. Therefore, we went to ask the local rabbi about the source of the debate in the early seventies. We figured the local rabbi ought to know. He did. As we surveyed, with some perplexity, the volumes of Hebrew writings (oral traditions) at the back of the synagogue, the Jewish Rabbi gave us the Jewish answer we had been searching for in his ancient Jewish writings. The source of the debate was in the third division of the Mishnah (Women) in Gittin 9:10. We could not read the Hebrew writings, but we remembered the source. It was not from Adam Clarke (or any other Christian commentator). Christian commentators mentioned Shammai and Hillel often enough but they never seemed to cite the original source. It was frustrating. But this was the original source, straight from a Jewish rabbi and his Rabbinical Traditions.
So, this “Goy” left the synagogue with a smile on his face. It was before the age of the internet. Now there was no excuse to be ignorant of this historical debate. This knowledge was hard won in those days, but it is easy to find on the internet today. The rabbi was actually an unbiased observer who was merely curious as to why some Goy would be interested in some of his ancient Jewish traditions. But his traditions told us that Jesus was not operating in a historical vacuum. Jesus addressed real issues. He was not just spouting some new Christian doctrine. Therefore, Jesus was a real historical figure. Unknown to the rabbi, it increased our faith in a certain Jewish Messiah who knew very well his Jewish roots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)