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.