Some Responses to Our Questions for Brother Battey

We did get some replies to our inquiry about agreement or disagreement with brother Battey's position on “The Case of Joseph and Mary.” We can definitely say that, in general, there has been a lot of interest for the blog post on “ Some Comments and Questions for Brother Battey.” Activity levels have been high.

However, activity levels are one thing and serious replies are another. Naturally, we got some very negative replies; and, from our perspective, we also got some very positive replies. Some people are actually glad that we have openly challenged brother Battey's “alarming biblical interpretations and conclusions.”

We can definitely say that brother Battey has been very open about his position on brother Malcolm's preaching in Moore, Oklahoma. One preacher claimed that we should take the Matthew 18 or the escalated discipline route with brother Battey like Jesus said that we should. Of course, brother Battey did not take that route with brother Malcolm. (We are “causing problems” and brother Battey is just “contending for the faith” we suppose?)

Brother Battey has announced a contest between himself and brother Malcolm on Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Jeff Johnston Fine Arts Center in Seminole, OK at the Seminole State College.

We do not mind advertising this event and hope that it will be more than just a Preacher Fest with the presence of a few entourages who are just there to cheer on their respective champions. Of course, neither speaker can be expected (or should be expected) to completely represent all viewpoints, and this event will not be “the be all and the end all” on this subject. But it should be interesting.

Brother Battey has framed his position as a contest between Jesus and the Law. One preacher stated “the Law of Moses permitted divorce for virtually any reason, except in the cases of capital sin when the death penalty was mandated.” Of course, according to brother Battey and some others, Jesus took a more conservative “Christian” approach than this. He merely allowed divorce for fornication. Consequently, the Seventh Commandment, “Do not commit adultery” has been seriously compromised by Brother Battey, who takes the very unhistorical approach of not recognizing Hillel or any of the other rabbis, but brother Battey virtually adopts Hillel's position (except Hillel believed that divorce for fornication was possible). Hillel was much more of a Jewish authority than brother Battey, but Jesus said that Hillel was wrong. (Matthew 5:32) Therefore, brother Battey's position is also wrong. Liberal divorce laws make it practically impossible to violate the Seventh Commandment.

Brother Battey was at a “preacher's study” in Ardmore, Oklahoma recently reciting his “'No-Exception' For Divorce (Is this true?)” pamphlet on brother Malcolm's sermon in Moore, Oklahoma. Brother Battey said: “Now, Don't talk to me about the Rabbinic Schools, and how there were two schools of rabbinic thought, and how the one said this and another…. I don't want to know about the rabbis! I want to know about the law of God.”

Why doesn't brother Battey want to know about the rabbis? Well, presumably it is because he wants to take a very solid biblical approach. But his approach is very unhistorical. He wants to pretend that “the tradition of the elders” is not a biblical subject. Well, anyone who has ever read Matthew 15 and Mark 7 knows that “the tradition of the elders” is a very biblical subject, and that the traditions of the elders were very germane to the constant problem that Jesus had with the Pharisees. In Matthew 15 and Mark 7 Jesus was contending for the “commandments of God” against the “traditions of the elders.” However, brother Battey consistently confuses and constantly conflates Jesus' opposition to the traditions of the Pharisees with his supposed opposition to the Law of Moses. Incidentally, brother Battey tries to turn Matthew 15 and Mark 7 into a future abrogation of the Jewish “Kosher Food Laws” given by Moses. But Jesus was merely opposing the current false “purity laws” contrived by the Pharisees. This is another false and confusing conflation by brother Battey where he tries to combine false purity laws with the Jewish Kosher food laws. “Traditions of the Elders.”

We suspect that brother Battey does not want to know about the rabbis because he knows that the house of Shammai contended for the cause of divorce for unchastity. This certainly does not help brother Battey's position that all Jewish women who were guilty of fornication should be executed. The grounds for divorce given by the rabbis are found in the Mishnah.

Gittin 9:10 A. The House of Shammai say, “A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity, B. “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Deuteronomy 24:1).” C. And the House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his dish, D. “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything.” E. R. Aqiba says, “Even if he found someone else prettier than she, “since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Deuteronomy 24:1).” (Neusner, 1987)

As we can see, the rabbis emphasized different terminology in Deuteronomy 24:1. Their definitions ranged from the very strict definition or emphasis of Shammai to the ultra-liberal definition or emphasis of Hillel. However, Shammai actually tried to define the words that were the most appropriate for the grounds for divorce. As we have tried to emphasize in other posts, “some uncleanness” or “a matter of nakedness” or “indecency in anything” is the same Hebrew terminology used throughout Leviticus 18 and 20 for having inappropriate sexual relationships (fornication) with those who were prohibited. Claiming that a “matter of nakedness” in Deuteronomy 24:1 cannot refer to fornication is like claiming that a discovery of “nakedness”, in Leviticus 18 and 20, cannot mean fornication. The idea is absurd.

Some preachers object to citing Hillel and Shammai in the divorce controversy. They are like brother Battey in that respect. Brother Battey said: “I don't want to know about the rabbis!” One preacher said: “In regard to Shammai and Hillel: these men were simply Jewish scholars and philosophers. I hear people today reference Adam Clarke and James MacKnight. These men like Shammai and Hillel are just scholars.”

This is partly true. They were just men with an opinion. Everybody has one. However, Hillel and Shammai completely dominated the divorce scene among the Jews in the time (and just before the time) of Jesus. Their interpretations were the “official positions” among the Pharisees. They were the “primary” and the “original” sources for the accepted “official positions.” Their opinions still hold today in Rabbinic Judaism. This means they were much more than just important commentators and philosophers like Adam Clarke. Adam Clarke, as far as we know, could not impose his will upon the general populace. But Hillel and Shammai could certainly impose their interpretations upon the Jews. The positions of Hillel and Shammai were actually used in legal proceedings. Therefore, Jesus had to deal with their legal opinions because Hillel and Shammai were legal authorities who had to be dealt with.

But brother Battey will not recognize the history of Hillel and Shammai. He will not even mention their names. “I don't want to know about the rabbis!” He wants to take a strictly biblical approach. He claims the Pharisees came testing Jesus because “Herod Junior” had killed John the Baptist for criticizing Herod's marriage. The Pharisees wanted the same thing to happen to Jesus that happened to John. This is the only reason brother Battey has given (that we know about) for why they tested Jesus. He will not even admit that the Pharisees wanted to discredit Jesus by getting him involved in their Jewish debate. But Jesus did not shy away from answering their debate. This is an important lesson for us.

We should not fail to cite the most obvious, important and appropriate player in this entire issue (namely Jesus). Jesus defined the grounds in Deuteronomy 24:1 as “fornication”, and we accept his very authoritative definition.

Brother Battey claims that Jesus contrasted his grounds for divorce with Moses' grounds for divorce. In Matthew 5:31-32, brother Battey claims that Jesus quoted Moses verbatim. However, notice Jesus' quote in Matthew 5:31 very carefully. “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.” Is this a quote from Moses? We defy brother Battey to find such a quote in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 where the “writing of divorcement” was given. This is what the Jews had heard from the Pharisees in their synagogues because they could not read this in their Holy Scriptures. (It was not because they were illiterate that they could not read this, as brother Battey claims. It was because their “oral tradition” was not in the Holy Scriptures.) It was misplaced emphasis by the Pharisees. The Pharisees really did not care about the grounds for divorce. All they cared about was the administration of the divorce certificate. But Jesus gave the grounds for divorce in verse 32 (in contrast to no grounds at all given by the Pharisees in verse 31). Furthermore, Jesus told them that they were causing innocent wives “to commit adultery.” In verse 32, Jesus specified that “fornication” was the only ground.

In Matthew 19, Jesus contrasted his answer with a question posed by the Pharisees. Notice carefully this contrast. It was a question posed by the Pharisees versus an answer given to them by Jesus. There are three very important content correspondence indicators or factors in their question. The first content indicator in the question is “is it lawful?” The second important content correspondence indicator in the question is “for a man to divorce his wife?” (because the Jewish man was acting upon his wife and not vice versa). The third important content correspondence indicator in the question is “for just any reason.” See our post "Chronological and Content Correspondence."

But brother Battey says the answer to their question is found in Mark 10:5. “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.” That is, Jesus merely acknowledged that divorce was possible and that was his answer to their question in Matthew 19:3. Brother Battey says that Jesus agreed with their answer.

However, Mark 10 is not very parallel with Matthew 19 in many respects. First of all, they asked this question in Mark 10:2: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.” They left out the “for just any reason” clause. They just asked him about the possibility of a Jewish man divorcing his wife. But in Matthew 19:3 they asked: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.”
In Matthew 19:7 the Pharisees asked Jesus: “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” But in Mark 10:3 Jesus asked them: “What did Moses command you?” These questions seem to be exactly the opposite concerning who was asking the question. In Matthew 19:7 the Pharisees were asking the “command question”, but in Mark 10:3 Jesus was asking the “command question.” (In any case, what Moses said was important.)

Perhaps by Mark 10:4 the Pharisees had gotten Jesus' point? They answered Jesus: “Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.” That is what Jesus had said to their “command question” in Matthew 19:8. “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives.” Perhaps Jesus was testing them with his “command question” to see if they had gotten his point? “Command” does not mean “permit”, like brother Battey says. Brother Battey says that “permit” equals “command.”Brother Battey is trying to force some parallelism on these passages which is simply not there.

Brother Battey is trying to prove that the answer to their question is only: “For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.” However, the precept Moses wrote is not the same as the reason Moses gave the precept. This is where brother Battey makes a mistake. What is the precept? Is the precept just that “Moses suffered divorce” or is it more extensive than this? In Matthew 19:9 Jesus explains his conclusion about Moses' precept: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” He continued from the “hardness of heart” reason Moses gave the precept with the “And I say” conjunction that summed up the precept Moses gave. This summation was not a contradiction against Moses. In Mark 10:2 they did not ask about the details for “every cause”, and in Mark 10:5 Jesus did not tell them the details for “every cause.” However, the exception is implied in their question and in Jesus' answer.

In our previous post, we did not agree with brother Battey's position that “fornication” always required execution and that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 did not provide divorce for fornication. Brother Battey believes that Deuteronomy 22 and Deuteronomy 24 are mutually exclusive. Brother Battey emphatically exclaims: “No divorce for fornication, EVER (under Mosaic law).”

In Jeremiah 3:1, Jeremiah said: “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord.” What does it take to “play the harlot”? We suppose God would have destroyed them for spiritual adultery? But he did not.

Again, we read: “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.” (Jeremiah 3:8) Brother Battey says the woman must be executed for such sins. But how could the prophet Jeremiah use this kind of figurative language for adultery and divorce if divorce were impossible for adultery? We realize that God, as God, can do whatever he wants. Nevertheless, the prophet Jeremiah used a legitimate analogy where God put Israel away for adultery.

We recommend against brother Battey's mistake that Jesus, as the Messiah, could do whatever he desired to do when he was on the earth. He emphatically claims that Jesus was the “Messiah”, and implies that, as the Messiah, Jesus could do whatever. But when Jesus was on the earth, he was “under” the law. (Galatians 4:4) Furthermore, Hebrews 4:15 states: “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Jesus could be tempted, and he could have sinned, but he did not. This is why Jesus was a perfect sacrifice. These facts are just part of “The Scheme of Redemption 101” information that can easily be found in the scriptures. Brother Battey asks: “Jesus sinned, who said that”? Well brother Battey has said that indirectly on more than one occasion. In fact, brother Battey said it immediately after he asked this question. Brother Battey claims that Jesus could willfully contradict (and consequently “sin”) against the Law of Moses. However, brother Battey does not view such contradictions as sin. Nevertheless, we submit that Jesus did not blaspheme or destroy the Holy Scriptures.

Brother Battey does not consider “conditional language” in “case law” very seriously. For example, If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. ”(Deuteronomy 22:13-19)

These passages have the obvious If/then constructs of “case law.” The conditions follow the “if” and the consequences follow the “then.” We ask a very important question. Does the man have to “give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her”? Does he have to fulfill the conditions for a test of her virginity? Brother Battey leaves out the man's choice in the matter and makes the “public example” route always mandatory. “She must be executed.” What about divorce? Well, it looks like the man forfeited that option under the laws against “double jeopardy.” It says: “he may not put her away all his days.” We see more than one option available in this “case law.” (So did the rabbis.)

The Jews had another test, that was discontinued by the Pharisees in AD 40 and certainly did not survive past AD 70, for women “going astray” in their marriage. This test bears some investigation. This was called the Sotah. A reference to the “ordeal of the bitter water” can be found at this internet site for Sotah.

Numbers 5:12-31 talks about the Sotah in these conditional terms: “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside (Sotah), and commit a trespass against him, 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; And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest ....” (Numbers 5:12-15) The terms “taken with the manner” means pregnant. The Jews divorced a woman who was pregnant and did not give her the “bitter water” test because there was no doubt the woman was guilty. Some Pseudepigrapha works actually apply the Sotah to Mary. (This is a very mysterious and complicated subject.) We are personally glad that Jesus “nailed it to the cross.”

Brother Battey pleads the “humility theory” in the case of Joseph and Mary. Joseph was a humble man and in awe of Mary. Therefore, he wanted to divorce her because he wasn't good enough for her. He cites Robert Gundry, McHugh and Salmeron as proof for his “humility theory.” Brother Battey has Joseph considering options (such as “public example” and “divorce") which were designed for sinners instead of the virgin Mary of which, brother Battey tells us, Joseph was “in awe.”

The “suspicion theory” is the predominant theory. In this theory, Joseph naturally suspects that Mary has fornicated or sinned. The “suspicion theory” rightly assumes that there were options available for dealing with sinners.

However, some preachers seem to agree with brother Battey. In our estimation, brother Battey may have backed some of his fellow preachers into a corner because the “humility theory” as a minor opinion will certainly hurt their credibility.

Brother Battey believes Moses gave divorce for many causes except for fornication. Moses did not allow divorce for fornication, but Jesus did. Therefore, brother Battey has Jesus at odds with Moses.

One way that brother Battey pleads for many causes under the Law of Moses is to cite examples of divorce for servants and women taken in military conquest. We call these “red herrings.” It is obvious that servants did not have the same “marital status”as free women.

For example, Leviticus 19:20 it says: “And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.” Since she did not have the same marital status as the free woman, she was not put to death like brother Battey claims that all such women should be. Perhaps brother Battey will stop using servants and women taken in military conquests as examples of putting women away because they were not always executed when they fornicated?

Circumstances for a servant under the Law of Moses can be very odd. “Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then is master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.” (Exodus 21:1-6)

We finish this post with a quote from a preacher who does not believe our position because it is just way too complicated. He said: “One of the reasons I find your position untenable is that you have to encompass heaven and earth to come to your conclusions. I live by the principle; 'Anything that hard to prove can't be right'". Somehow, our brother finds his side of the issue simple and believable?

We have a solution for our preaching brother. We have been trying to prove that Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9 are not for Christians. Let's drop this Jewish debate and just be done with it. Then we will concede that all our points are simply “moot points.” Then all the complexity that we must deal with in this Jewish debate will suddenly be gone. But we predict that won't happen. Sadly, we shall continue to be forced into this complicated Jewish discussion by those who desire to justify their marriages by using Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:31-32 as their justification.

Some Comments and Questions for Brother Battey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Correspondence Scenarios

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Correspondence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological and Content Correspondence

In this post we review some of the answers that Ronny F. Wade wrote in his Querist Column of the October, 2013 issue of the OPA. We use the same format that Jesus used when he answered the Pharisees. (Matthew 5:20-48) Of Course, Mr. Wade is not a Pharisee and we certainly are not Jesus. We mostly use this format to delineate between some of his positions and some of our positions. Therefore, we shall hereafter refer to Mr. Wade as “the writer.”

The writer answers this question in his query column: “In view of Luke 16:16, where does Matthew 19:9 belong?” The question is somewhat loaded. It implies that Luke 16:16 is chronologically related to Matthew 19:9. There is some truth to that fact. Jesus did preach Matthew 19:9 after John the Baptist came preaching the kingdom of God. But this chronological factor cannot be stretched much further than that historical fact. The question would have been much more meaningful to us had the question included the “disclaimer” in verse 17. We believe a better question would have been “In view of Luke 16:16-17, where does Matthew 19:9 belong?”

The writer writes: “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” (We added italics to emphasize the chronology.) The writer then explains: “The basic idea of this verse merely indicates that with the last book of the Old Testament scriptures, (Malachi), no further revelation came from God until John broke the silence by preaching in the wilderness. From that point the kingdom of heaven was preached. Obviously Matthew 19:9 came after John began his preaching, hence in order to determine where the verse applies, one must first of all determine if the verse agrees with or differs from what the Law of Moses taught.” The writer begins with some “chronological implications” and finishes with a “content correspondence argument.” “Obviously, Matthew 19:9”, he says, comes “after John the Baptist began his preaching” (timing). And then he concludes: “...hence ..., one must first of all determine if the verse agrees with or differs from what the Law of Moses taught” (content correspondence).

But we respond: Is it fair to give such a strong chronological connection between Luke 16:16 and Matthew 19:9? As we have already stated, we do not believe that the disclaimer in verse 17-18 received any due diligence from the writer. That disclaimer states: “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” (Luke 16:17-18) Also, the writer does not mention the chronological fact that John the Baptist lived under the Law and died before the end of the Law of Moses at the cross. (Colossians 2:14, Ephesians 2:14-15, Galatians 2:19-20, Romans 7:4-6) Therefore, Luke 16:16 is not a statement about the end of the effectiveness or the preaching of the Law of Moses; but it is rather a statement about the beginning of the preaching of the kingdom of God by John the Baptist and Jesus. The end of the Law of Moses and the beginning of the preaching of the kingdom of God do not coincide. Furthermore, the writer, in his chronological and content correspondence implications, implies that the preaching of the kingdom of God (Luke 16:16) excluded the preaching of the law and the prophets in Matthew 19:9. However, this implication is totally invalidated by the disclaimer given in Luke 16:17-18. The Law of Moses was not excluded from the preaching of the imminence of the kingdom of God (“kingdom of God is at hand”). Also the Law of Moses and the Prophets were preached in the preaching of repentance. The preaching of repentance implies the existence of law. Therefore, the law was preached so that the Jewish people would have a better understanding of how to repent. See Romans 4:15. These two ideas (imminence and repentance) are tied together in a single statement about the preaching of the gospel message “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) Incidentally, the writer cannot preach either aspect of this basic gospel message (imminence and repentance) in the same sense that it was originally preached by Jesus and John.

The writer writes: “And I say unto you, whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery. (NKJV)”

But we respond: We certainly have no contention with the writer's quotation of this passage. It is a statement made by Jesus. We consider Jesus to be the premier authority in all matters pertaining to the law. But the writer did not explain some of the implications in this passage. He misses several points of correspondence. He misses both the content and the chronological correspondence. First of all, he misses that Matthew 19:9 is a continuation of Jesus' answer to the Pharisees' question. Jesus' statement “And I say unto you” is a statement about continuation (not disruption). The Pharisees had just asked Jesus several important (and contentious) questions. Jesus quickly responded. The close proximity of Jesus' answers to their questions is of paramount chronological importance. But the writer obviously prefers the extended and the more nebulous chronological relationship between Luke 16:16 and Matthew 19:9. Therefore, he avoids the “question and answer” chronological or “close proximity” relationship. Shall we make a plea for Occam's razor here? Shall we make a plea for the obvious chronological and content connection which usually exists between questions and answers? Or shall we broaden the chronological scope of the questions and answers session between Jesus and the Pharisees to include those present and those absent such as all Christians (males and females, Jews and Gentiles, before and after Pentecost or just after Pentecost)?

Obviously the writer broadens the chronological scope of Matthew 19:9 to apply after Pentecost. The writer asserts that Matthew 19:9 is for Christians tomorrow instead of just for those Jews who were asking him the questions in his day. In fact, the writer does not desire Jesus' answer in Matthew 19:9 to apply to his Jewish audience. As we have stated in previous posts, there are some “terrible implications” in such a destructive view of teaching the gospel against the Law of Moses. But the writer desires such a destructive preaching of the gospel instead of the chronological and the content correspondence with the Law.

The writer later writes: “Does Matthew 19:9 apply today? Of course it does. Those who make the argument that unless something in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is repeated after Pentecost it does not apply to Christians today, miss the point and actually enunciate an unscriptural hermeneutic.”

But we respond: Some may make such an argument. Some may make Pentecost a hard and fast dividing line for every single statement that Jesus ever made; but we do not. Perhaps those who see a disconnected “question and answer” session in Matthew 19 are the ones who really “miss the point and actually enunciate an unscriptural hermeneutic?” However, Jesus' disciples did not miss the point. They knew that Jesus' answer applied to them immediately. Furthermore, Jesus did not correct their view. “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” (Matthew 19:10) Obviously, their dismay in verse 10 pertained to Jesus' answer in verse 9 without any intervening disconnection. Their reaction was both strong and immediate. Jesus responds to their dismay with the statement that “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” (Matthew 19:11) That is, not everyone can receive the disciples' saying “it is not good to marry.” Only those who do not have the physical capacity for marriage could accept the idea that “it is not good to marry.”

The writer writes: “The context of this verse is couched in the question asked of Jesus by the Pharisees.” By “this verse”, he means Matthew 19:9.

But we respond: The writer actually concedes the context in Matthew 19:9. As far as we are concerned, such a concession of the context (couched in their question) should be “game over.” It is like conceding that we are very close to checkmate in the game of chess. There is very little room to move after such a concession is made. Such an important concession cannot be overstated. The writer recognizes both the contextual and the chronological correspondence between the answers and the questions when he makes such a concession.

The writer writes: “...couched in the question...'is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?'”

But we respond: There are three very important content correspondence indicators or factors in their question. The first content indicator in the question is “is it lawful?” The second important content correspondence indicator in the question is “for a man to divorce his wife?” (because the Jewish man was acting upon his wife and not vice versa). The third important content correspondence indicator in the question is “for just any reason?”

The first indicator means they were asking about legal matters under the Law of Moses. The second indicator means they were asking about the man divorcing his wife. A man could initiate a divorce; but the woman could not initiate a “writing of divorce” or give her Jewish husband a “Get.” Even today, a woman who does not receive a Jewish “Get” from her husband is considered to be an Agunah or a “chained woman.” She has no legal recourse. (The Jewish courts sometimes use punitive measures to force the man to give his wife a divorce out of his own “free will.”) Obviously the language in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:31-32 is about a man putting away his wife.

However, the writer believes that divorce can be initiated by any party (man, woman or Gentile Christian). But Jewish writers, such as Josephus, wrote that women could not divorce their husbands. For example, he wrote about Herodias “...Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod, her husband's brother by the father's side, he was tetrarch of Galilee....” [Josephus's Jewish Antiquities (Book XVIII, Chapter 5, 4)] Also Mark 6:18 reads: “For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.” Therefore, it was evidently wrong for her to divorce her uncle Philip and to marry her other uncle Herod. The third indicator means they were asking about multiple grounds of divorce. There was not complete correspondence or consensus about the divorce grounds among the Pharisees. The writer does not point this out. He really does not have the space (nor perhaps the inclination) to do so. But the writer believes that there was only “one ground” for a writing of divorce; and that ground was given by Jesus to Christians (male or female). However, his concept ignores an important Jewish school of thought concerning the grounds for divorce. The school of Shammai gave just one ground for a man to divorce his wife. That ground was “unchastity.” [Neusner's The Mishnah A New Translation (The Third Division: Women, Gittin 9:10)] Deuteronomy 24:1 specifies the same ground of ervah or a reference to “the nakedness of a thing.” Ervah is the same Hebrew word used throughout Leviticus 18 and 20 to list inappropriate sexual relations between prohibited parties. On occasion the writer has written about the “guilty party.” However, he seems to ignore the fact that a Jewish man could make a woman, who was completely innocent, guilty by causing her to “commit adultery” when he unlawfully put her away. (Matthew 5:32) Jesus tried to make the Jews realize this in Matthew 5:31-32. A man could not remain innocent after he had made his wife guilty. However, the rabbis believed the man was innocent if he merely followed the appropriate guidelines specified in their “oral traditions” for giving a Jewish woman a divorce. Therefore, giving an innocent Jewish woman a divorce was condemned by Jesus. The writer is fond of the statement “What is good for the goose is good for the gander.” In this case, “What is bad for the goose (woman) is not good for the gander (man) either.” The writer seems to believe that just the “fornicating party” is the “guilty party.” He seems to ignore the fact that a Jewish woman could not put away her Jewish husband for fornication. In our opinion, his views about the “guilty party” simply lack historical context.

The writer writes: “Jesus replied by directing them to the beginning stating 'they are no longer two but one flesh, therefore what God hath joined together let not man separate.'”

But we respond: Jesus directed the Pharisees to God's original intention for marriage. That intention was not modified by divorce. We suggest that this is still God's original intention today. Jesus' response to “any reason” was “no divorce.” However, the writer believes that God's original intention is qualified by Jesus to divorce for “fornication.” In other words, Jesus contradicts God's original intention for marriage himself. Therefore, Jesus basically answers the Pharisees out of both sides of his mouth. He accuses Moses of modifying God's original intention (for the hardness of their hearts); and then he modifies God's original intention himself by instituting divorce for fornication. May we suggest to the writer that such an idea is not very consistent?

The writer will not accept God's original intention as stated by Jesus' original answer to the Pharisees. He writes at the conclusion of his column: “The teaching of Christ in this passage, limits divorce to one reason 'fornication or sexual immorality.' Divorce sought and secured for any other reason is wrong and in violation of this passage.” That is, Matthew 19:9 is the only ground for divorce. However, Jesus said: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female....” Jesus did not appeal to his own authority here. Jesus appealed to the scriptures. He appeals to God's original intention. Why would Jesus begin his answers with an appeal to the scriptures and then end his answers with an appeal to his own authority in Matthew 19:9 when the Pharisees cited Deuteronomy 24:1-4? We believe that The Law of Moses ended; but God's original intention for marriage did not end.

The writer writes: “They then asked 'Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and put her away?' He answered 'Moses, because of the hardness of your heart permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.' Those who claim that Moses (Deut. 24:1-4) authorized the practice of divorce miss the point. There is no law in the Old Testament that institutes the practice of divorce. Divorce was an age old and accepted practice, long before Deut. 24 was written. The Deut. Passage merely discusses whether or not the divorced woman can return to her first husband if her second husband dies or if he divorces her. In other words the legislation of Moses limits divorce, rather than serves as a provision for it. Matthew 19:9 on the other hand actually provides for divorce based on the unfaithfulness of one of the partners 'And I say unto you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.' This clearly shows that the passage was not a part of the Law of Moses, but Kingdom teaching by Christ himself.”

But we respond: The writer says that divorce was “based on the unfaithfulness of one of the partners.” Either party could divorce. As proof, the writer cites a passage that has just the husband putting away his wife. Notice again the context of their question. The context was: “Why then did Moses command...?” Are we to believe that Jesus did not answer them according to their question? In fact, preachers sometimes truncate Jesus' answer with “Moses, because of the hardness of your heart permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” Period. Jesus merely acknowledged the fact. He had nothing more to say to them about the Law. Then Jesus abruptly proceeds to give them his own ground. But Jesus does not give it to them. Please consider that point very seriously. There is a total disconnect here. (Talk about not talking to a wall. Jesus knew it was hopeless to say anything to them. Therefore he changed the content of the subject? He just acknowledges their question and then meanders off into “Kingdom teaching” for future generations?) This disconnect is even admitted by the writer. The writer writes: “This clearly shows that the passage was not a part of the Law of Moses, but Kingdom teaching by Christ himself.” He later writes, “It is amazing to what lengths one will go in order to exclude Matthew 19:9 from being applicable today.” We also believe that it is simply amazing to what lengths some will go to include Matthew 19:9 in Kingdom teaching and exclude it from the Law of Moses.

The writer truncates Jesus' response at exactly the very same place where many of the Pharisees truncated Moses' allowance for divorce. They were not really concerned about the legitimate grounds for divorce. They also were not concerned about what they were doing to their wives. They were merely concerned about the divorce procedure and practice as they believed it was given by Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

Jesus pointed this out in his Sermon on the Mount. Jesus noted “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.” (Matthew 5:31) Who said that? Did Moses say that? Was Jesus disagreeing with Moses? No. Moses had said: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement.” (Deuteronomy 24:1) Moses had specified in his “case law” the actual reason for the divorce. It was a “matter of nakedness.”

But the Pharisees said: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.” Period. Did Jesus agree with the Pharisees in Matthew 19:8 when he concluded that “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives...?” Period. No, Jesus stated in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 that the reason for divorce was fornication. Otherwise, a Jewish man caused his wife to “commit adultery.” However, if she had committed fornication, she was guilty. She deserved to be “put away.” However, it was an “option” and not a “necessity.” See the case of Joseph and Mary in Matthew the first chapter.

In the exception clause Jesus gave, he was speaking to a Jewish audience because he said: “But I say unto you” and “And I say unto you.” The expression “unto you” means that he was directing his answer towards his current audience. There was no disconnect. When Jesus said “whoever” and “whosoever” he was referring to Jewish men. When he said “put away his wife” he was referring to the practice of Jewish men putting away their wives. There was a lot of correspondence between Jesus' answers and their practices. The writer claimed: “Those who claim that Moses (Deut. 24:1-4) authorized the practice of divorce miss the point.” However, the writer was certainly not missing the passage (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Neither was Jesus; and neither are we. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was very germane to the whole subject.

　

The Outreach Constraints

Jesus operated within certain constraints. We have mentioned some of these constraints in previous posts. We called them “disclaimers.” For example, we talked about his “identity” constraint. That is, Jesus “managed” his identity as “the Christ.” The fact that he is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” is the bedrock of Christianity. But this essential fact was not proclaimed or widely known until after his death. In fact, the disciples were told not to even mention it. (Matthew 16:17-20) We also talked about his “doctrinal” constraints. He came not to destroy the Law of Moses. Instead he was a “man of the book.” He put extreme emphasis on what was “written.” He also emphasized such qualities as judgment, mercy and faith which were the “weightier matters” of the law. However, we noticed that he did have some problems with some of the “Oral Traditions” of the Pharisees. (Matthew 5ff., Matthew 15ff., Mark 7ff. and Matthew 23ff.) We also noticed that some Christians interpret these problems, which he had with the traditions of the Pharisees, as problems that he had with Law of Moses. Therefore, we noticed some of the serious implications of this too, such as making Jesus a sinner, making him “least in the kingdom” and making him a destroyer of the Law. (Matthew 5:17-20) Because of these serious implications, we contended that he never violated this doctrinal constraint.

In this post we want to talk about “outreach constraints.” That is, Jesus, as the Messiah, and his disciples were not free to go into “all the world.” Therefore, Jesus operated within the Jewish community. His outreach to the Gentiles came after his death through his disciples after he gave them the “great commission.” (Matthew 28:18-20) However, there are notable exceptions to Jesus' strictly Jewish outreach. And Jesus used these notable exceptions to explain that the Gentiles would soon come into his kingdom.

For example, “...when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.” (Matthew 8:5-13) This centurion was a Gentile who would not have normally been part of Jesus' target audience. However, he had such a great amount of faith that he was even a witness against Israel's great lack of faith. Jesus exclaimed: “I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” Jesus had come first to the children of Israel; but eventually those from the east and the west (Gentiles) would be invited into his kingdom. The Jews or the “children of the kingdom” would be cast out because they would reject him. Therefore, just as John had said: “He came unto his own and his own received him not.” (John 1:11) They did not receive Jesus; and Jesus would not receive them either.

On another occasion it says: “Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.” (Matthew 15:21-28)

If we are animal lovers, we might resent the seemingly low opinion the Jews had of dogs. (However, Jesus likely said this in a kind way to this woman of Canaan. It would have been uncharacteristic of him to have been unkind.) Others may be offended by the fact that Jesus had clearly focused his outreach on the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”; and, therefore, he was reluctant to “take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.” This may seem unfair to some; but it highlights Jesus' goal of coming to his own people first. Jesus did not lack mercy just because he was working according to a plan and preaching according to a standard. He also was testing the faith and the perspective of this Gentile woman, who would not be deterred by anything that Jesus said because she was fighting for her daughter's life. She also had great faith in Jesus. Therefore, she humbly confessed, “Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.” Jesus was amazed by her faith and by her humility, so he did what she asked. He made an exception. But the fact still remains that the primary thrust of Jesus was “unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” This “woman of Canaan” had not changed that. But the attitude she exhibited in her request was a great contrast to the attitude of the Pharisees, who had previously tried to impose their Jewish traditions upon his disciples in the the first part of Matthew 15. Jesus, as a rule, did not go to the Pharisees either because of their confrontational behavior, their traditions and their firm belief that they were the legitimate leaders of Israel. He tried to avoid them. Therefore, Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 15:13-14: “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Their movement, with all of its traditions, was evidently not planted by God. Therefore, it would be removed. But after the destruction of Jerusalem it was morphed and revived into another form of Pharisaism that still exists today in the form of Talmudic Judaism.

The “woman at the well” (John 4) is another example of Jesus going to someone outside the confines of mainstream Judaism. She was a Samaritan woman and practiced a hybrid form of worship based on a special version of what Christians might call the Old Testament. Therefore, she was not completely removed from the Jewish religion. But she was not a legitimate worshiper either. Her worship was not according to the will of God. (This is a strong argument against the idea that well-intentioned worship is sufficient. Some people do worship they “know not what.” Worship can be unauthorized.) After Pentecost, in Acts 8, Philip the evangelist was not prevented by Jewish Christians from going to the Samaritans. In fact, Peter and John were sent to the Samaritans by the Jerusalem church so that the Samaritans could receive the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:15) But Peter was questioned by the Jewish Christians for going to the household of Cornelius in the coastal area of Caesarea. Peter was also very reluctant to go to the Gentiles. Therefore, God arranged a special vision for Peter about eating unclean food. This vision occurred three times. (Acts 10:10-16) The Jews definitely considered Cornelius to be a Gentile. Therefore, Peter took some fellow Jews along to witness the fact that Gentiles were not out of bounds like the Jews had supposed.

In John 4, Jesus took the opportunity to let the Samaritan woman know that worship was going to change dramatically. The woman asked about worship at Mount Gerizim where the Samaritans worshipped. “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.” (John 4:20-22) In this passage, Jesus identifies himself with the Jews and their legitimate worship because he said: “...we know what we worship....” However, for all those who may think that Jesus will come back some day and establish a special place of worship in Jerusalem, they ought to notice what Jesus said to this Samaritan woman. Jesus said that people will not worship at Jerusalem. In fact, the temple was destroyed so that people could not worship there even if they wanted to worship there. Will God now come back and revive Old Testament worship on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? No, centralized worship at Jerusalem was removed just as Jesus predicted. (Matthew 24:1-2) Although some still worship at Mount Gerizim in Samaria, this too has been eliminated. As Jesus said, it was never a legitimate place to worship God anyway. Jesus said: “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23-24) True worship has been decentralized. Now it is not associated with any particular location nor is it offered by any special hierarchy of priests. People can worship in “spirit and in truth” wherever they can assemble for that purpose. Therefore, the emphasis has been changed from the right place of worship to the right kind of worship. This is an indictment against all “holy ground” sites where people desire to approach God such as the “Western Wall”, “St. Peter's Basilica”, Mecca, Medina or the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Men often desire to make such sites as the place of the crucifixion, Jesus' tomb and the place where Jesus was born in Bethlehem “holy”, but God has intentionally left these places unsanctioned and unidentified. There is no “holy ground.”

What is sometimes called the “Limited Commission” in Matthew 10 and Luke 9 is a good example of Jesus' disciples operating within his outreach constraints. “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.” (Matthew 10:5-8) In this commission, we notice several important ideas. First, their audience was limited to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (the Jews). Second, the message was limited to “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” In previous posts, we have emphasized that John the Baptist and Jesus both preached this limited gospel message of the “imminence” of the kingdom. This is not the message that was later preached by Peter and the eleven on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 when the kingdom was established. We read in Acts 2:41: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” They were added “unto them” (the kingdom or the church). “...And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. ” (Acts 2:47) Therefore, we do not preach the gospel message that Jesus and John preached before the cross; and we do not preach the gospel message the disciples preached in the “Limited Commission.” Third, a distinction is made between the classes of people that were excluded by the “Limited Commission.” Jesus distinguished between the “Gentiles” and the “Samaritans.” As we mentioned earlier, differences were made between these two classes. The Samaritans had many historical events and doctrinal ideas in common with the Jews. On the other hand, the Gentiles had very little in common with the Jews. Fourth, miracles were performed to alleviate their suffering and to cause the Jews to believe.

The “Limited Commission” is often contrasted with the “Great Commission.” The great commission says: “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:18-20) A contrast of these two commissions might look something like this:

Limited Commission	Great Commission
1) Given before the cross.	1) Given after the cross.
2) Jesus had limited power on earth.	2) Jesus had all power in heaven and earth.
3) Disciples sent to Israel. (Local Outreach)	3) Disciples sent to the world. (World Outreach)
4) Disciples taught the “imminence” of the kingdom. (Local Message)	4) Disciples taught the kingdom existed; and the Lord added the baptized believers to his church. (Universal Message)
5) It was a temporary commission.	5) It was a permanent commission or “until the end of the world.”

　

We notice that on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, Peter used “the keys of the kingdom”, promised to him in Matthew 16:19, to open the kingdom and invite people to come into it. Keys are used to open the doors (or gates) and give people entrance into the kingdom. But still, the outreach at this time was just to the Jews. Since Pentecost was a great feast where the “first fruits” were offered to God, Jews “out of every nation under heaven” were present. (Acts 2:5) Therefore, about three thousand souls responded to the gospel message in which Jesus, whom they had crucified, was proclaimed to be their king and glorified at the right hand of God on the throne of David. After hearing this “church doctrine” or “apostles' doctrine” it says: “...they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” (Acts 2:37-39) Notice, Peter did not say “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” like he did when Jesus commissioned him in the “Limited Commission.”

One of the greatest dividing lines for the “Limited Commission” and the “Great Commission” was the death of Jesus upon the cross. Paul often referred to this dividing line in his ministry to the “uncircumcised” (Gentiles). Paul often had to fight Judaizers who wanted Gentiles to keep the Law of Moses. Therefore, he often referred to the fact that the Law of Moses ended. For example, in Romans 7, he plainly said the Law of Moses ended at the cross with the death of Jesus. Therefore, as Gentiles, we do not have to worry about the Law of Moses. To prove his point, he used the marriage bond as an analogy. Since he was speaking to those “who knew the law” about marriage, he thought they would understand his analogy. Sometimes in the epistle to the Romans, Paul did not qualify the nature of “law.” For example, he did not always say the “Law of Moses”, the “Law of Christ”, the “Law of the Conscience”, “Law of the Spirit” or “the law of her husband.” We have to get the qualification from the text, the context or what we may consider to be good reasoning. We do not believe Paul is primarily giving the people of Rome a lesson about the “marriage question.” Therefore, we do not believe that it is necessary to completely “harden the categories” on the kind of law that they “knew.” However, Paul is giving them a lesson about the end of the law of Moses. They all understood that, as a general rule, marriage is indissoluble. (Even under the Law of Moses, man was not allowed to indiscriminately divorce his wife. Although some Jews made rules out of exceptions, the general rule among them was no divorce.) Therefore, Paul was arguing from what was plainly understood under law (the permanent nature of marriage) to a conclusion that was perhaps not so well understood (the end of the Law of Moses). Of course, people are still subject to “civil laws” under the Law of Christ unless those civil laws violate the laws of God. Therefore, Paul was not speaking about the end of “civil law.” Paul said: “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ (death on the cross—my insertion); that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” (Romans 7:-5) We must admit that there is a qualification in the first part of this analogy. Paul said “the law of her husband.” In the beginning, God made them male and female. This was the marriage law from the very beginning. We may call it the “law of her husband” if we think that is reasonable. However, we believe that in the conclusion of his analogy Paul is definitely referring to the Law of Moses and the death of Jesus upon the cross. In general, we believe that Paul, given his Jewish “frame of reference” and his continual fight against Judaization, is referring to the Law of Moses throughout the entire seventh chapter. Furthermore, there are other places where Paul speaks about the end of the Law of Moses.

One such place is Galatians. We should understand that in Galatians Paul was fighting Judaization. Obviously, Paul did not want the Galatians to keep the Law of Moses. Some may not understand what Paul meant when he referred to “another gospel.” (Galatians 1:6) However, it is obvious that Paul meant Judaization. There was more than one gospel. There was the gospel which was proclaimed by the Jewish arm of the church in Jerusalem. (James was one of the main leaders at the church in Jerusalem.) And there was the gospel which was proclaimed by the Gentile Christian arm of the church. One gospel said that you could be a practicing Jew and also be a Christian. The other gospel said you must be a Christian without practicing Judaism. One was the gospel to the “circumcision” (Jews). The other was the gospel to the “uncircumcision” (Gentiles). (Galatians 2:7) Paul was a minister to the uncircumcision.

However, as a Jew, Paul encountered criticism from the Jews when he preached a Gospel which released the Gentiles from Judaism. This was a very controversial effort. The Jews accused him of being inconsistent and hypocritical. Paul got a bad reputation. Paul explained: “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) Was Paul being deceptive? Romans 3:8 indicates that some thought that he was: “...(as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.” Some accused Paul of believing that the end justifies the means. But Paul did not believe this. Obviously, it was not wrong for him, as a Jew, to practice Judaism and, as a Christian, to practice Christianity. He did both.

Acts 21 proves that Paul practiced Judaism. “And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.” (Acts 21:17-25) In this passage, James states: “...the multitude must needs come together....” Therefore, if for no other reasons than practical reasons, Paul submitted to their request to prove to the multitude that he walked orderly and kept the law of Moses.

However, Paul did his best to make sure that the Gentiles understood that they were justified by Christ and not the Law of Moses. This is why that Paul stressed that the Law of Moses ended at the cross. Paul said: “For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Galatians 2:18-21) Of course, Paul was crucified with Christ when Jesus became dead to the law at the cross.

All practical means of keeping the Law of Moses was eliminated by the destruction of the Temple. It seems almost symbolic that, according to some history, James the brother of Jesus and the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was martyred by being cast from the pinnacle of the temple. Therefore, God physically removed Judaism. (Unfortunately, it was revived in another form by the Talmud.)

Hegesippus says they came, therefore, in a body to James, and said: "We entreat thee, restrain the people: for they are gone astray in their opinions about Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade all who have come hither for the day of the passover, concerning Jesus. For we all listen to thy persuasion; since we, as well as all the people, bear thee testimony that thou art just, and showest partiality to none. Do thou, therefore, persuade the people not to entertain erroneous opinions concerning Jesus: for all the people, and we also, listen to thy persuasion. Take thy stand, then, upon the summit of the temple, that from that elevated spot thou mayest be clearly seen, and thy words may be plainly audible to all the people. For, in order to attend the passover, all the tribes have congregated hither, and some of the Gentiles also." To the scribes' and Pharisees' dismay, James boldly testified that Christ "Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven." The scribes and pharisees then said to themselves, "We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him." Fragments from Acts of the Church says that they: ...threw down the just man... [and] began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: "I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: "Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us." But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man. And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. [Wikipedia - James the Just]