However, activity levels are one thing and serious replies are another. Naturally, we got some very negative replies; and, from our perspective, we also got some very positive replies. Some people are actually glad that we have openly challenged brother Battey's “alarming biblical interpretations and conclusions.”
We can definitely say that brother Battey has been very open about his position on brother Malcolm's preaching in Moore, Oklahoma. One preacher claimed that we should take the Matthew 18 or the escalated discipline route with brother Battey like Jesus said that we should. Of course, brother Battey did not take that route with brother Malcolm. (We are “causing problems” and brother Battey is just “contending for the faith” we suppose?)
Brother Battey has announced a contest between himself and brother Malcolm on Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Jeff Johnston Fine Arts Center in Seminole, OK at the Seminole State College.
We do not mind advertising this event and hope that it will be more than just a Preacher Fest with the presence of a few entourages who are just there to cheer on their respective champions. Of course, neither speaker can be expected (or should be expected) to completely represent all viewpoints, and this event will not be “the be all and the end all” on this subject. But it should be interesting.
Brother Battey has framed his position as a contest between Jesus and the Law. One preacher stated “the Law of Moses permitted divorce for virtually any reason, except in the cases of capital sin when the death penalty was mandated.” Of course, according to brother Battey and some others, Jesus took a more conservative “Christian” approach than this. He merely allowed divorce for fornication. Consequently, the Seventh Commandment, “Do not commit adultery” has been seriously compromised by Brother Battey, who takes the very unhistorical approach of not recognizing Hillel or any of the other rabbis, but brother Battey virtually adopts Hillel's position (except Hillel believed that divorce for fornication was possible). Hillel was much more of a Jewish authority than brother Battey, but Jesus said that Hillel was wrong. (Matthew 5:32) Therefore, brother Battey's position is also wrong. Liberal divorce laws make it practically impossible to violate the Seventh Commandment.
Brother Battey was at a “preacher's study” in Ardmore, Oklahoma recently reciting his “'No-Exception' For Divorce (Is this true?)” pamphlet on brother Malcolm's sermon in Moore, Oklahoma. Brother Battey said: “Now, Don't talk to me about the Rabbinic Schools, and how there were two schools of rabbinic thought, and how the one said this and another…. I don't want to know about the rabbis! I want to know about the law of God.”
Why doesn't brother Battey want to know about the rabbis? Well, presumably it is because he wants to take a very solid biblical approach. But his approach is very unhistorical. He wants to pretend that “the tradition of the elders” is not a biblical subject. Well, anyone who has ever read Matthew 15 and Mark 7 knows that “the tradition of the elders” is a very biblical subject, and that the traditions of the elders were very germane to the constant problem that Jesus had with the Pharisees. In Matthew 15 and Mark 7 Jesus was contending for the “commandments of God” against the “traditions of the elders.” However, brother Battey consistently confuses and constantly conflates Jesus' opposition to the traditions of the Pharisees with his supposed opposition to the Law of Moses. Incidentally, brother Battey tries to turn Matthew 15 and Mark 7 into a future abrogation of the Jewish “Kosher Food Laws” given by Moses. But Jesus was merely opposing the current false “purity laws” contrived by the Pharisees. This is another false and confusing conflation by brother Battey where he tries to combine false purity laws with the Jewish Kosher food laws. “Traditions of the Elders.”
We suspect that brother Battey does not want to know about the rabbis because he knows that the house of Shammai contended for the cause of divorce for unchastity. This certainly does not help brother Battey's position that all Jewish women who were guilty of fornication should be executed. The grounds for divorce given by the rabbis are found in the Mishnah.
Gittin 9:10 A. The House of Shammai say, “A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity, B. “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Deuteronomy 24:1).” C. And the House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his dish, D. “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything.” E. R. Aqiba says, “Even if he found someone else prettier than she, “since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Deuteronomy 24:1).” (Neusner, 1987)
Some preachers object to citing Hillel and Shammai in the divorce controversy. They are like brother Battey in that respect. Brother Battey said: “I don't want to know about the rabbis!” One preacher said: “In regard to Shammai and Hillel: these men were simply Jewish scholars and philosophers. I hear people today reference Adam Clarke and James MacKnight. These men like Shammai and Hillel are just scholars.”
This is partly true. They were just men with an opinion. Everybody has one. However, Hillel and Shammai completely dominated the divorce scene among the Jews in the time (and just before the time) of Jesus. Their interpretations were the “official positions” among the Pharisees. They were the “primary” and the “original” sources for the accepted “official positions.” Their opinions still hold today in Rabbinic Judaism. This means they were much more than just important commentators and philosophers like Adam Clarke. Adam Clarke, as far as we know, could not impose his will upon the general populace. But Hillel and Shammai could certainly impose their interpretations upon the Jews. The positions of Hillel and Shammai were actually used in legal proceedings. Therefore, Jesus had to deal with their legal opinions because Hillel and Shammai were legal authorities who had to be dealt with.
But brother Battey will not recognize the history of Hillel and Shammai. He will not even mention their names. “I don't want to know about the rabbis!” He wants to take a strictly biblical approach. He claims the Pharisees came testing Jesus because “Herod Junior” had killed John the Baptist for criticizing Herod's marriage. The Pharisees wanted the same thing to happen to Jesus that happened to John. This is the only reason brother Battey has given (that we know about) for why they tested Jesus. He will not even admit that the Pharisees wanted to discredit Jesus by getting him involved in their Jewish debate. But Jesus did not shy away from answering their debate. This is an important lesson for us.
We should not fail to cite the most obvious, important and appropriate player in this entire issue (namely Jesus). Jesus defined the grounds in Deuteronomy 24:1 as “fornication”, and we accept his very authoritative definition.
Brother Battey claims that Jesus contrasted his grounds for divorce with Moses' grounds for divorce. In Matthew 5:31-32, brother Battey claims that Jesus quoted Moses verbatim. However, notice Jesus' quote in Matthew 5:31 very carefully. “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.” Is this a quote from Moses? We defy brother Battey to find such a quote in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 where the “writing of divorcement” was given. This is what the Jews had heard from the Pharisees in their synagogues because they could not read this in their Holy Scriptures. (It was not because they were illiterate that they could not read this, as brother Battey claims. It was because their “oral tradition” was not in the Holy Scriptures.) It was misplaced emphasis by the Pharisees. The Pharisees really did not care about the grounds for divorce. All they cared about was the administration of the divorce certificate. But Jesus gave the grounds for divorce in verse 32 (in contrast to no grounds at all given by the Pharisees in verse 31). Furthermore, Jesus told them that they were causing innocent wives “to commit adultery.” In verse 32, Jesus specified that “fornication” was the only ground.
In Matthew 19, Jesus contrasted his answer with a question posed by the Pharisees. Notice carefully this contrast. It was a question posed by the Pharisees versus an answer given to them by Jesus. There are three very important content correspondence indicators or factors in their question. The first content indicator in the question is “is it lawful?” The second important content correspondence indicator in the question is “for a man to divorce his wife?” (because the Jewish man was acting upon his wife and not vice versa). The third important content correspondence indicator in the question is “for just any reason.” See our post "Chronological and Content Correspondence."
But brother Battey says the answer to their question is found in Mark 10:5. “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.” That is, Jesus merely acknowledged that divorce was possible and that was his answer to their question in Matthew 19:3. Brother Battey says that Jesus agreed with their answer.
However, Mark 10 is not very parallel with Matthew 19 in many respects. First of all, they asked this question in Mark 10:2: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.” They left out the “for just any reason” clause. They just asked him about the possibility of a Jewish man divorcing his wife. But in Matthew 19:3 they asked: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.”
In Matthew 19:7 the Pharisees asked Jesus: “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” But in Mark 10:3 Jesus asked them: “What did Moses command you?” These questions seem to be exactly the opposite concerning who was asking the question. In Matthew 19:7 the Pharisees were asking the “command question”, but in Mark 10:3 Jesus was asking the “command question.” (In any case, what Moses said was important.)
Perhaps by Mark 10:4 the Pharisees had gotten Jesus' point? They answered Jesus: “Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.” That is what Jesus had said to their “command question” in Matthew 19:8. “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives.” Perhaps Jesus was testing them with his “command question” to see if they had gotten his point? “Command” does not mean “permit”, like brother Battey says. Brother Battey says that “permit” equals “command.”Brother Battey is trying to force some parallelism on these passages which is simply not there.
Brother Battey is trying to prove that the answer to their question is only: “For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.” However, the precept Moses wrote is not the same as the reason Moses gave the precept. This is where brother Battey makes a mistake. What is the precept? Is the precept just that “Moses suffered divorce” or is it more extensive than this? In Matthew 19:9 Jesus explains his conclusion about Moses' precept: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” He continued from the “hardness of heart” reason Moses gave the precept with the “And I say” conjunction that summed up the precept Moses gave. This summation was not a contradiction against Moses. In Mark 10:2 they did not ask about the details for “every cause”, and in Mark 10:5 Jesus did not tell them the details for “every cause.” However, the exception is implied in their question and in Jesus' answer.
In our previous post, we did not agree with brother Battey's position that “fornication” always required execution and that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 did not provide divorce for fornication. Brother Battey believes that Deuteronomy 22 and Deuteronomy 24 are mutually exclusive. Brother Battey emphatically exclaims: “No divorce for fornication, EVER (under Mosaic law).”
In Jeremiah 3:1, Jeremiah said: “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord.” What does it take to “play the harlot”? We suppose God would have destroyed them for spiritual adultery? But he did not.
Again, we read: “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.” (Jeremiah 3:8) Brother Battey says the woman must be executed for such sins. But how could the prophet Jeremiah use this kind of figurative language for adultery and divorce if divorce were impossible for adultery? We realize that God, as God, can do whatever he wants. Nevertheless, the prophet Jeremiah used a legitimate analogy where God put Israel away for adultery.
We recommend against brother Battey's mistake that Jesus, as the Messiah, could do whatever he desired to do when he was on the earth. He emphatically claims that Jesus was the “Messiah”, and implies that, as the Messiah, Jesus could do whatever. But when Jesus was on the earth, he was “under” the law. (Galatians 4:4) Furthermore, Hebrews 4:15 states: “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Jesus could be tempted, and he could have sinned, but he did not. This is why Jesus was a perfect sacrifice. These facts are just part of “The Scheme of Redemption 101” information that can easily be found in the scriptures. Brother Battey asks: “Jesus sinned, who said that”? Well brother Battey has said that indirectly on more than one occasion. In fact, brother Battey said it immediately after he asked this question. Brother Battey claims that Jesus could willfully contradict (and consequently “sin”) against the Law of Moses. However, brother Battey does not view such contradictions as sin. Nevertheless, we submit that Jesus did not blaspheme or destroy the Holy Scriptures.
Brother Battey does not consider “conditional language” in “case law” very seriously. For example, If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. ”(Deuteronomy 22:13-19)
These passages have the obvious If/then constructs of “case law.” The conditions follow the “if” and the consequences follow the “then.” We ask a very important question. Does the man have to “give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her”? Does he have to fulfill the conditions for a test of her virginity? Brother Battey leaves out the man's choice in the matter and makes the “public example” route always mandatory. “She must be executed.” What about divorce? Well, it looks like the man forfeited that option under the laws against “double jeopardy.” It says: “he may not put her away all his days.” We see more than one option available in this “case law.” (So did the rabbis.)
The Jews had another test, that was discontinued by the Pharisees in AD 40 and certainly did not survive past AD 70, for women “going astray” in their marriage. This test bears some investigation. This was called the Sotah. A reference to the “ordeal of the bitter water” can be found at this internet site for Sotah.
Numbers 5:12-31 talks about the Sotah in these conditional terms: “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside (Sotah), and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner; And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest ....” (Numbers 5:12-15) The terms “taken with the manner” means pregnant. The Jews divorced a woman who was pregnant and did not give her the “bitter water” test because there was no doubt the woman was guilty. Some Pseudepigrapha works actually apply the Sotah to Mary. (This is a very mysterious and complicated subject.) We are personally glad that Jesus “nailed it to the cross.”
Brother Battey pleads the “humility theory” in the case of Joseph and Mary. Joseph was a humble man and in awe of Mary. Therefore, he wanted to divorce her because he wasn't good enough for her. He cites Robert Gundry, McHugh and Salmeron as proof for his “humility theory.” Brother Battey has Joseph considering options (such as “public example” and “divorce") which were designed for sinners instead of the virgin Mary of which, brother Battey tells us, Joseph was “in awe.”
The “suspicion theory” is the predominant theory. In this theory, Joseph naturally suspects that Mary has fornicated or sinned. The “suspicion theory” rightly assumes that there were options available for dealing with sinners.
However, some preachers seem to agree with brother Battey. In our estimation, brother Battey may have backed some of his fellow preachers into a corner because the “humility theory” as a minor opinion will certainly hurt their credibility.
Brother Battey believes Moses gave divorce for many causes except for fornication. Moses did not allow divorce for fornication, but Jesus did. Therefore, brother Battey has Jesus at odds with Moses.
One way that brother Battey pleads for many causes under the Law of Moses is to cite examples of divorce for servants and women taken in military conquest. We call these “red herrings.” It is obvious that servants did not have the same “marital status”as free women.
For example, Leviticus 19:20 it says: “And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.” Since she did not have the same marital status as the free woman, she was not put to death like brother Battey claims that all such women should be. Perhaps brother Battey will stop using servants and women taken in military conquests as examples of putting women away because they were not always executed when they fornicated?
Circumstances for a servant under the Law of Moses can be very odd. “Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then is master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.” (Exodus 21:1-6)
We finish this post with a quote from a preacher who does not believe our position because it is just way too complicated. He said: “One of the reasons I find your position untenable is that you have to encompass heaven and earth to come to your conclusions. I live by the principle; 'Anything that hard to prove can't be right'". Somehow, our brother finds his side of the issue simple and believable?
We have a solution for our preaching brother. We have been trying to prove that Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9 are not for Christians. Let's drop this Jewish debate and just be done with it. Then we will concede that all our points are simply “moot points.” Then all the complexity that we must deal with in this Jewish debate will suddenly be gone. But we predict that won't happen. Sadly, we shall continue to be forced into this complicated Jewish discussion by those who desire to justify their marriages by using Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:31-32 as their justification.
No comments:
Post a Comment