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]

The Identity Disclaimer

Jesus made famous disclaimers. In previous articles, we have emphasized some of Jesus' most famous disclaimers (such as the fact he came not to destroy the Law or the Prophets). (Matthew 5:17-20, Luke 16:17) In this article we want to emphasize his identity disclaimer.

Jesus closely managed his identity. Neither he nor his disciples actively and openly proclaimed that he was the Christ during his earthly ministry. Therefore, his identity was effectively disclaimed until later. We are not saying that no one knew who he was. We are just saying that he guarded and even timed the revelation of his true identity with concealed language, alternate names and with the admonition to his disciples not to reveal his true identity that he was the Christ.

This fact was prophesied in Isaiah 53:2 where he is depicted as a “root out of dry ground.” That is, salvation came from a very unexpected person in a very unexpected place. When Philip introduced Jesus to Nathanael, Nathanael asked in complete amazement: “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” Philip responded with “Come and see.” (John 1:46) Although Nathanael quickly believed who Jesus really was, this was not something that was generally known. That is, Jesus was paradoxically famous and obscure at the same time. This is a miracle in and of itself. People did not know (or did not believe) who he was. His opposition knew at times, from all the evidence he presented, and they even called him a blasphemer; but they did not believe him. They were not about to become his advocate or his disciple. However, they certainly had heard about him.

In this sense, Jesus was like God's secret weapon. Jesus was a polished shaft hidden in God's quiver. (Isaiah 49:2) He was the mysterious and lethal blow to Satan's dominion. Jesus openly, and yet mysteriously, defied the most subtle creature in all of God's creation. He openly defied Satan. Without a doubt, this is one of the greatest testimonies that Jesus is the Christ. “He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.” (Isaiah 42:4) Satan could sometimes see and feel his opposition; but there was nothing he could ever do about it.

In fact, the whole of the majestic Psalm 2 is a great testimony to the complete superiority of the Son. People raged against him and imagined that they could defeat him. But it was vain for them even to imagine that Jesus could be defeated. Although they did their best to stand against the Lord's anointed, it was such a wasted endeavor that “...the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.” (Psalms 2:4) They simply had no offense, defense, plan or response. In spite of their best efforts, God still set his holy king upon his holy hill of Zion. God still decreed “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” (Psalms 2:6-7) There was simply no stopping him. That is why this Psalm ends: “Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” (Psalms 2:11-12)

Gamaliel was later wise enough to admit how pointless it is to fight against God. When Peter finally became converted enough to openly defy his adversaries, he said: “We ought to obey God rather than men …. Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:34-39) We suspect that Gamaliel, the grandson of Hillel the Elder, was wise enough to give this assembly some very good advice. But as we see in his student Saul of Tarsus, he was probably not wise enough to take it. In all good conscience, his student Saul killed and persecuted Christians. But Jesus' success is testimony that we can never successfully defy God. As Jesus told Saul (later the apostle Paul) on the road to Damascus, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” (Acts 9:5-6) Therefore, Saul went into the city of Damascus where he was told by Ananias to arise and to be baptized and to wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)

One of Jesus' designations was Emmanuel which means “God is with us.” (Matthew 1:23) This name helps to explain the dual nature of Jesus as the “Son of God” and the “Son of man.” Jesus often referred to himself as the “Son of man” to emphasize his fleshly side. We believe this term helps to explain Jesus' heavenly coronation after his ascension. Daniel describes his night vision this way: “I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13-14) Those who were astute may have caught the significance of this code name “Son of man.”

Isaiah also uses the term Immanuel over a sequence of chapters (Isaiah 7 through Isaiah 9) to lead us to the Son of man by a miraculous birth. First, in referring to Jesus' miraculous birth, Isaiah 7:14 reads: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Immanuel or “God with us” comes from a miraculous birth and results in a strong presence and a reliable counsel. “God is with us.” (Isaiah 8:10) Therefore, Isaiah says that God is either our sanctuary or a rock of offence. “Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 8:13-14) There is no remedy for those who stumble at this stone. Then Isaiah reveals the wonderful dawning of a new government from this birth. “The people that walked in the darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined (referring to Jesus' ministry).” (Isaiah 9:2) “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.” (Isaiah 9:6-7) All three of these chapters (Isaiah 7 through 9) are connected by the concept of Immanuel or “God with us.” As John said: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14, 1 John 1:1-2)

Evidentally God has appeared in the flesh more than a few times. Therefore, the birth of God should not be foreign to us. For example, the Lord (Yahweh) appeared to Abraham. “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.” (Genesis 17:1) There is no doubt who was saying this. First, the term “Lord” or Yahweh (I am) is used in this passage. Second, the Lord declared himself to be the “Almighty God.” Third, he is visible. He “appeared” to Abram. Abram “fell on his face” and talked with him. (Genesis 17:3) Unless Abram was prostrating himself before a mere mortal, the Lord appeared to him in some bodily form. In the next chapter, the Lord (Yahweh) appeared again to Abraham in the plains of Mamre as Abraham sat in the tent door in the heat of the day. (Genesis 18:1) This gives us some detail about the Lord's appearance. “And he (Abraham) lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground.” (Genesis 18:2) Evidentally the Lord was one of these three men. Furthermore, these men actually ate a meal that Abraham ordered for them. In Genesis 18:13 the Lord (Yahweh) heard Sarah laugh within herself when he told Abraham that Sarah would have a son. She was way too old to have a son. Therefore the Lord asked Abraham “Is any thing too hard for the Lord (Yahweh)?” When Sarah heard the Lord ask this, she was afraid and actually denied (lied) that she had laughed. But the Lord knew she had. He said: “Nay; but thou didst laugh.” (Genesis 18:15) We may be encouraged to know that the Lord did not give her a strong rebuke for this. In fact, the Lord had already named their child Isaac or “he will laugh” from the fact Abraham had also laughed in the previous chapter. The Lord knew that Sarah was afraid of him; and it was an incredible thing to happen to those who were considered dead as far as having children were concerned. (The humanity of this entire account seems self validating. Most people would have laughed. This account also prefigures God's power to resurrect the dead.)

When Jesus was on the earth, did he tell anyone who he was? Yes, he did. For example, he told some of the Samaritans. In John 4, Jesus met a certain Samaritan woman at Jacob's well. He started a conversation. In that day, it was unusual for Jewish men to even acknowledge a strange woman in public. They certainly would not have engaged them in any extended conversation. Worse yet, this woman was a Samaritan woman. Therefore, it was understandable this woman should ask: “How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.” (John 4:9) After Jesus reviewed her life with her, giving her knowledge that only God could have, we read: “The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.” (John 4:25-26)

It is obvious that Jesus admitted that he was the Christ. This article is not about Jesus never disclosing that fact. This article is about Jesus managing that fact. There is a big difference. No doubt Jesus was laying some groundwork for such evangelists as Philip who would later have great success in Samaria. Jesus' work in this area was also having an immediate impact. He spent several days with the Samaritans. His work caused many of the Samaritans to believe. Nevertheless, this outreach and the knowledge that Jesus was the Christ was contained because these people were Samaritans and the Jews, as the woman had already said, “have no dealings with the Samaritans.” They had some things in common with the Jews; but for the most part they were considered to be outcasts. But this fact would soon change. (John 4:23-24)

Did Jesus' opposition know that Jesus was “the Christ”? Well, they did not believe that he was; but they believed he was making this claim. In John 10:24-36 the Jews surrounded Jesus on Solomon's porch in the temple. They asked: “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus knew that it would have been futile, even detrimental, to make this claim among them even though they requested a plain statement. Why? Did they want this statement so they could believe? Did they want it so that they could become his advocate? No, they wanted it so they could accuse him of blasphemy and kill him. Every time he gave them any knowledge about himself, they did their best to use it against him. No wonder Jesus was reluctant to identify himself to them.

The Pharisees made it very difficult for important people to acknowledge him. In John 12:42-43 we read: “Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” To acknowledge that Jesus was the Christ among them was more than difficult. It required great courage. Therefore, the knowledge that Jesus was the Christ was contained. First, it was contained because of unbelief. Second, it was contained because of envy. The Pharisees, the Priests and the Sadducees did not want to lose their place. Third, it was contained because the Pharisees did everything they could to make it difficult for those who believed and would confess Jesus. They actively suppressed and opposed Jesus' identity. They would not hesitate to put his believers out of the Synagogue. This was likely the reason that Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, “came to Jesus by night.” (John 3:2) He may have been afraid to come by day. Fourth, it was a serious crime to make any leadership claims before the rulers of Rome. Any leadership role must not be perceived as opposition to Rome.

It was also not proclaimed because it was a part of God's great plan. Certain types of people were not privileged to know this. Therefore, Jesus did not have the reputation for making this claim. At times he was asked; but he did not proclaim it in the streets. This is obvious from Matthew 16. “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:13-16) It was a great blessing for Peter to be able to know this. It was not part of Jesus' general reputation. Therefore, Jesus said to Peter: “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” (Matthew 16:17-21)

There are several significant ideas presented in Matthew 16. First, Peter did not learn this from “flesh and blood” or men. Second, the fact that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” was the absolute bedrock upon which the kingdom would be established. Some who believe in ecumenism, which is unity between different religious groups and denominations, claim that this is the only real basis for unity. Ultimately we can only be united upon the fact that “Jesus is Lord.” For example, they claim that belief in immersion for baptism can never be a real basis for unity. It is just too hard for some people to accept immersion. But some people today are even saying we cannot be united with people upon the concept that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. For example, the Jews and Muslims will never confess that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Therefore, each must come to know God in their own way. The essential that Jesus is Lord is no longer an essential. Nevertheless, Jesus said: “...unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24) (As it has been said: “That which proves too much proves nothing.”) Jesus will not cease to be Lord just because we cannot psychologically accept the fact that many people in this world will die in their sins. The Gospel addresses that issue. The entire world may perish, but blessed are those eyes that can see Jesus. Third, Jesus said that his death would not prevent him from building his church (equating the church with the kingdom). Fourth, Peter and the disciples would bind “church doctrine.” The same idea is repeated in Matthew 18:18 where Jesus instructed his disciples about church doctrine and church discipline. In fact, Jesus used the very same words about binding and loosing in Matthew 18:18 that he did in Matthew 16:19 when he told Peter that he would give him the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.” There is an obvious connection between these chapters and these passages. Fifth, the disciples were instructed to “tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” Therefore, we get this title, “The Identity Disclaimer.” The basic identity tenet upon which Jesus would build his church (that he was “the Christ, the Son of the living God”) was not to be preached as church doctrine until after the cross. Sixth, Jesus began to show his disciples how he must die on the cross and be raised again the third day. This was not explicitly preached either. Jesus gave the Pharisees signs like the “sign of Jonah.” But he would not give them any other signs. They did not understand or believe these signs unless they happened to understand them in retrospect. The disciples of Jesus (his close inner circle) also did not understand that Jesus would die even after Jesus plainly told them so. In fact, Jesus could not have been more specific. But his disciples could have not been more blind.

Jesus indirectly made another identity disclaimer in Matthew 17. Jesus took his closest disciples (Peter, James and John) upon this secluded mountain to show them what no other man had ever seen before. He was transfigured before them. His “...face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” (Matthew 17:1-5) This has been explained to us like this. Jesus is the Son of God and represents the New Testament. Moses represents the Old Testament. Elias, as a great prophet, represents the Prophets. We are to “hear” Jesus or the New Testament instead of Moses and the Prophets. Special emphasis is often given to the words “hear him”; and we have detected at times that we ought to hear Jesus in opposition to Moses and the Prophets in such passages as Matthew 19:9. We have also been advised that Jesus taught the Gospel in Matthew 18, on church doctrine and church discipline; therefore, we ought to be able to understand that Jesus taught the Gospel in Matthew 19:9 on marriage, divorce and remarriage. However, we do not get the connection. In Matthew 19:9 Jesus was presenting a Jewish answer to a Jewish question. But he was not presenting a Jewish answer to a Jewish question in Matthew 16, 17 or 18. Therefore, we do not get the connection. As we have already said, “That which proves too much proves nothing.” We can often find examples where Jesus taught the Old Testament and the Prophets. In fact, Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount that they which “do and teach” the Law and the Prophets would “be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” This also applied to Jesus. (Matthew 5:17-19) Therefore, we cannot rightly be accused of building a tabernacle to the Law of Moses or of building a tabernacle to the Prophets. We can also find examples where Jesus taught the Gospel. We believe that he taught a nondestructive Gospel. For example, Jesus gave a “new commandment” that his disciples should love each other. (John 13:34-35) Their love certainly did not violate the Law and the Prophets. This “new commandment” was nondestructive. When we can find examples where Jesus taught the Law of Moses, we certainly cannot make the blanket assertion or assumption that Jesus taught the Law of Moses elsewhere too. Likewise, when we can find examples where Jesus taught what we consider to be a nondestructive Gospel, we cannot make the blanket assertion that Jesus taught the Gospel elsewhere also. It has never been an either/or situation. Jesus taught the Law of Moses and he taught what we consider to be a nondestructive Gospel. We see Jesus appearing with Moses and Elias. He was not appearing against them. We have always seen Jesus as a friend to the Law and the Prophets. Nevertheless, the suggestion of Peter on this occasion to make three tabernacles was wrong. Jesus superseded Moses and the Prophets just as a man who has become dead to his old marriage can be married to another. (Romans 7ff.) Therefore, we readily agree that there is substance to the analogy which we have been given about the proper interpretation of his transfiguration on the mount. When Jesus lifted up his disciples from their great fear of God's wonderful pronouncement from heaven, they saw “Jesus only.” But Jesus also gave his disciples another disclaimer. It is a tribute to his planning, to his humility and to his great ability to manage his identity. “And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.” (John 17:8-9)

Methodically and majestically Jesus managed his identity to the very last. As the King of the Jews, Jesus came riding into Jerusalem on this young colt and the crowd began to cry out “...Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.” However, the leaders were very displeased. (Matthew 21:7-16) As the President of the United States said the other day in Israel about those who would deny Israel's right to exist, “they might as well deny the sky above them or the earth below.” Many in Israel applauded his comment. Likewise, the Pharisees asked Jesus to keep his disciples quiet when they confessed him as their king during his Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, but Jesus said: “...if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” (Luke 19:38-40) The Pharisees might as well have endeavored to deny the heavens above or the the earth below.

The high priest wanted Jesus to confess his identity under oath. However, Jesus would not volunteer this information because he “is brought as a lamb to the slaughter.” (Isaiah 53:7, Acts 8:32) Matthew says: “But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.” (Matthew 26:63-66) We see plainly why they wanted Jesus to volunteer this information about his identity. It was not because they wanted to confess him and to become his disciples. They wanted to accuse him of blasphemy and to kill him. Therefore, they pronounced their judgment upon him; and they also pronounced their judgment upon themselves. Surely at their judgment, when they would see Jesus coming again at the right hand of God in the clouds of heaven, they would confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. But at their judgment their confession would be too late.

The last thing the leaders of Jerusalem desired to see was Jesus proclaimed to be their king. They had fought this revelation throughout Jesus' earthly ministry. It was not something they desired to see acknowledged at any time. However, at the very last, it was written in three different languages. Therefore, to their dismay, it could not be hidden; and it could not be suppressed. “And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.” (John 19:19-22) And thus it shall ever be written.

Therefore, we come to our final reason why Jesus managed and disclaimed his identity. As Paul said: “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Corinthians 2:7-8) Again we read in Acts 4: “And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. …. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. …. And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them. And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” (Acts 4:1-28)

The Righteousness of the Pharisees

Many of the characteristics which the Pharisees exhibited will subvert the people of God in any generation, in every nation and under any law. We can learn a lot about how God views us by how he viewed the Pharisees. For example, we may study the characteristics of the churches in Revelation to get some idea about what God thinks about our church. Unfortunately, we may find that God sees our church like he saw some of the churches in Revelation. The seven churches were “weighed in the balance” and often “found wanting.” The same is true with the Pharisees. Jesus often found the Pharisees (their attitudes, their ideas and their conduct under the Law) lacking.

Obviously, God was not well pleased with the Pharisees as a group. In fact, Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount: “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20) With this statement, he transitioned from his disclaimer (that he had not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets) to his contrastive teachings on how the Pharisees had failed to keep the Law.

We have constructed a list where Jesus found fault with the Pharisees. We cannot do this list justice. We are sure the reader can add to this list. And when we compare it with the life of Jesus, there is really no comparison. Whereas Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets perfectly, the Pharisees hardly fulfilled them at all. Of course, one of their worst faults was their rejection of the true Messiah. Unfortunately, when we compare ourselves with this list, we may find that we also have some things in common with the Pharisees. How do we compare? Here is our list:

• The Messiah would bring world peace. We include this first because the Pharisees were actually the enemies of Jesus. They firmly believed that they would be part of a world peace brought about by the real Messiah. The Pharisees were not exclusively at fault in their conclusion. Many of the common people (including the disciples of Jesus) believed this too. But this was a faulty conclusion which was derived from such passages as Isaiah 11:6. As we stated in a previous article, Isaiah 11:6 was about the spiritual regeneration of those who exhibit the spiritual characteristics of a ferocious Lion. But a Lion can change (spiritually speaking) and lie down with the lamb. There would be peace with the children of God (Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, males and females). In the early part of his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus refuted the idea that the kingdom would come about by force by saying that the “poor in spirit” would inherit the kingdom of heaven; and that the “meek” would inherit the earth. The Pharisees would not accept this reality. (John 11:48) When Jesus sent his disciples out on a limited commission (to the household of Israel), he advised them: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) His disciples were not going out on some kind of a military conquest to bring about world peace. Using violence to bring about peace is somewhat of a contradiction in terms. This “sword”, as we learn in other places, was actually the “Word of God.” Certainly, there is nothing more divisive than this. It separates right from wrong, good from bad and brother from sister. It separates those who are eternally saved from those who are eternally lost. In short, it separates people. It, along with Jesus, is the greatest divider or the greatest uniter. It divides the sheep from the goats.
• They did not trust the “written word” to do its job. Satan is the master of deception. He uses misdirection, indirection and redirection (all the tricks of the trade). He hides every action. He quotes scriptures. But he puts a twist on every scripture that he quotes. He leads people in the wrong direction because people do not recognize the source of their temptations. Anytime we are tempted to do wrong (something that is not according to the Word of God) it is from our own lusts or from Satan. We shall be led astray. What is our defense? It is the same defense that Jesus used in his temptation. (Matthew 4ff.) Jesus used the “written word.” In Deuteronomy 8:3, God explains about the testing of the children of Israel in the wilderness. “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.” God wanted to teach Israel respect for his word. In fact, chapter 8 begins with this verse: “All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live....” (Deuteronomy 8:1) The commandments were their life. But the Pharisees failed this test because they put a “fence” around the Law with their own words and ideas. They developed an “oral tradition.” (Matthew 15ff., Mark 7ff.) Therefore, they failed (just as Israel had failed before them). But where the Pharisees failed, Jesus succeeded. Jesus lived by every word that proceeded forth from the mouth of God. Jesus, as the Word of God, was the supreme authority and the most excellent servant. He was more than just a professor. He lived by the Word daily. He embodied it. In fact, he was the Word of God in the flesh. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us....” (John 1:14) Therefore, for Jesus to have denied the Word would have been the highest form of self-mutilation. That is why, in the disclaimer of Jesus, it was “...easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.” (Luke 16:17, Matthew 5:17-20)
• They were a privileged class. They received much praise, glory and honor from men because of their assumption of power over the people. In fact, they sometimes received praise that was due only to God. They seated themselves in the seat of Moses (chief seat in the synagogue); not because God had put them there; but because they had put themselves there. They had simply assumed that position. (We may debate whether that power was legitimate or not. Jesus seemed to give them some credence along with his strong rebuke in Matthew 23ff.) But in any case, they expected to be catered to because of this power. They loved prominent positions at feasts and in the synagogues. They loved those special greetings and attention that they received in the market places. They also loved those special titles such as Rabbi and Master. They expected their personal opinions and their influence to be regarded on every occasion. In their minds, they were elevated above “that which is written.” The people bowed to their assertions on many biblical subjects. That is why Jesus warned them in the Sermon on the Mount not to believe everything they heard in their schools and in their synagogues.
• The Pharisees claimed special authority for their teachings and their customs. In previous articles, we have explained, the Pharisees were very upset when the disciples of Jesus did not follow after the “tradition of the elders.” (Matthew 15ff., Mark 7ff.) Jesus identified their “oral teachings” in his Sermon on the Mount with the expression “you have heard.” They claimed these “oral teachings” came from Moses. These traditions evolved into the Talmud. Today, people put forth their special creeds, edicts and historical interpretations of various biblical passages and attribute them to God. But Jesus often rejected their extra-biblical teachings (especially when they destroyed or contradicted the commandments of God as given by Moses). Jesus gave the “written word” preference (like we should do--as we have already said).
• They did not respect, love or fraternize with those whom they considered to be common, ignorant or sinners. They associated with their equals. They did not associate with the defiled. Jesus said: “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” (Matthew 5:4) Jesus went to the downtrodden, the brokenhearted, the blind and the bruised. (Matthew 4:16-21) He associated with “publicans and sinners” because they needed help. They needed a physician. Jesus gave them hope. The Pharisees scorned them.
• They taught false doctrine. Most people consider proselytizing to be a good thing. People want to convert others to their biblical ideas and practices. However, in the case of the Pharisees, Jesus disliked their attempts to convert people. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” (Matthew 23:15) This is an important point. When we convert people, unless we are converting them to the right thing (with the right doctrine or the proper respect for the Word of God), we are not doing them any favors. We are also not doing ourselves any favors.
• They did not seek righteousness. This seems like a strange statement since they focused on learning the scriptures and their traditions. However, there is a difference between seeking knowledge and seeking righteousness. Attitudes can make a difference. Jesus said: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled.” (Matthew 5:6) Strong says righteousness is equity or justification. When the Pharisees came to John's Baptism of Repentance, they were not seeking righteousness. In fact, they rejected the Baptism of John. (Luke 7:30) When they came to Jesus, they came to tempt him, or catch him in some error, or to criticize him (not to seek righteousness).
• They did not seek repentance. They did not submit to John's water Baptism of Repentance. Repentance implies conforming to an existing Law and submitting to the will of God. A law must exist before a sin can occur. (Romans 4:15) They were guilty and needed to repent. Even Jesus, who was without sin, submitted to John's Baptism. “And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:15) He came to do all righteousness under the Law. John was more than a great prophet under the Law. But the least in the kingdom of heaven were greater than John. (Matthew 11:9-11) This includes everyone who has been baptized into Christ's kingdom (which is a much greater dominion than that of Moses). Of course, John's Baptism of Repentance (along with the Law of Moses) became ineffective at the cross. (Acts 19:1-6) His baptism was not for all people for all time. The Pharisees thought it was enough to be of Abraham's seed or to be the “chosen” people of God. But as John explains to the Pharisees in Matthew 3:7-9, it was not enough to be born of the physical seed of Abraham. “But when he (John) saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Likewise, if we are unwilling to submit to baptism, then we are like the Pharisees. (Matthew 18:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Galatians 3:27, 1 Peter 3:21 and so on)
• They swore falsely. Nedarim, the third Tractate of Nashim in the Mishnah, gives us some idea of all the rules about vows they had developed (and continued to develop after the death of Jesus). There is no way they could be innocent of forswearing when they followed these rules. In Matthew 23:16-22, Jesus soundly condemned their rules. Therefore, Jesus simplified their rules in Matthew 5:37 to just telling the truth. It was better not to swear than to try to follow their intricate rules. Solomon emphasized the seriousness of falsely promising God by saying: “When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.” (Ecclesiastes 5:4-5) Oaths and vows (which are different yet similar) had become a Pharisaical pastime. (For more information on oaths refer to the Shavuot or the Shabuot Tractate of the Mishnah. For an example of the complexity of oaths, refer to this link: Talmud Study - Lesson 10. Notice, this study is for beginners!) The Pharisees should not have toyed with the truth. There was no need for them to constantly emphasize their promises with oaths. Such promises lead to trivial and false swearing. They can also lead to great sins. Remember that Herod promised with an oath to give the daughter of Herodias whatever she asked. To his dismay, she asked for the head of John the Baptist. But for the oath's sake, he gave her what her mother desired. (Matthew 14:6-10)

We could add many more characteristics to our list. (We had about forty items). But we have included just enough to show that Jesus had a problem with the Pharisees. He had a problem with all sin. Some claim that Jesus had a problem with the Law of Moses or what is “written.” But Jesus examined and condemned the sins of the Pharisees and sinners (not the Law of Moses). The Law served the purpose of making Jesus righteous. Many of the characteristics of the Pharisees can be exhibited under any law (Law of Moses or the Law of Christ). Of course, we reject some of the details of the Law of Moses; just as we reject the Baptism of John. (Acts 19:1-5). We would not baptize anyone with this baptism. We would not command anyone to repent of their sins under the Law of Moses. We would not command anyone to keep the Law of Moses to inherit eternal life. (Matthew 19:16-17) The Law of Moses is no longer effective. (Colossians 2:14) Therefore, we would not make the blanket assertion that everything Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount pertains to Christians. However, we would say that many of the deeds and attitudes of the Pharisees were wrong; and they are just as wrong today. To see a video that illustrates the problem of the Pharisees, please follow this link: Modern Day Pharisee.