Some Comments and Questions for Brother Battey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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