tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15334566891374709142024-03-12T20:34:15.618-05:00Dwight's Biblical Opinionsdwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-77608645454005333902018-07-15T13:18:00.000-05:002018-07-15T15:35:26.131-05:00Q&A session at Spring Hill Church of Christ in South Charleston, WV. This Q&A session is on the Virtual Debate with Allen Bailey.
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zOgJACrc8CY" width="480"></iframe>
dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-21208337633196559492018-04-12T22:20:00.000-05:002018-04-12T22:37:06.177-05:00
This is a virtual debate with Allen Bailey on Marriage,
Divorce and Remarriage.
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5OJporKt5RQ" width="480"></iframe>dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-43008103282061076002015-04-10T22:17:00.003-05:002015-04-11T17:23:04.240-05:00Printable Copy of Dwight's Biblical Opinions Blog<iframe src="https://docs.google.com/viewer?srcid=0B4ZQyK1Zw2zgeVZndDBEWWYtaEk&pid=explorer&efh=false&a=v&chrome=false&embedded=true" width="580px" height="480px"></iframe>
dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-6676132584370831882015-04-10T20:02:00.000-05:002015-08-15T05:22:16.989-05:00Review of the Kniffen/Battey Debate in SeminoleBrother George Battey commented on the “Open Study” in Seminole, Oklahoma in a cover letter for a proposition for a formal, four-night debate on the subject of divorce and remarriage, that he sent to some of us. He commented: “there were approximately 300 people present and the audience was evenly divided – half favoring the no-exception position and half favoring the exception position.” Brother Battey also commented in his cover letter, “I believe our study together proved two things: (a) people are interested and will attend an open study on the divorce question and (b) brethren can conduct themselves in honorable manner during such discussions.” He also said, “Those who commented felt that, although the study was good, the time allotted for the study was inadequate to fully cover the subject matter. Brother Clint DeFrance [sic] issued a challenge for a longer, four night debate to fully discuss the topic.”
<br><br>
Brother Battey did not give much time in this open study to “The Case of Joseph and Mary” like he had done in both of his pamphlets under the same title “'No-Exception' For Divorce (Is this true?).” His first pamphlet under this title was 44 pages long, and his revised pamphlet (after he noticed some additional arguments), was 68 pages long.
<br><br>
Brother Malcolm did point out to brother Battey that the “humility theory” in “The Case of Joseph and Mary” comes from Catholic doctrine. The Catholics, who always like to reverence and worship Mary, devised this “humility theory” which basically states that Joseph thought Mary was such a “highly favored” woman she was worthy of worship; and, therefore, Joseph wanted to divorce Mary. James Trayler, from Waco, wrote in an unpublished paper he gave to us at the debate: “Most likely such reasoning is rooted in Catholic doctrine. The works of Alphonso Salmeron (1515-1585) contributed greatly to Catholic theology which eventually lead to the veneration of Mary. It was his argument that Mary was far from ordinary. His commentary on the Joseph and Mary relationship (Matt 1:18-20) has Joseph in worshipful posture toward Mary. So much so, he wanted to put his betrothed away privately in view of his supposed unworthiness to [his] wife one who was with child by the Holy Ghost. Reasoning's such as this became the interpretive metrics by which Salmeron elevated the standing of the Blessed Virgin to that of an equal with Christ. In fact it was Salmeron who coined the term 'co-redemptrix' as it relates to the salvation of mankind (Ven. Mary of Agreda, Mystica Ciudad de Dios (Antwerp: H. and C. Verdussen, 1696), P. I, L. I, c.18, n. 274, p. 86b. Alfonso Salmeron, Commentarii in Evangelicam historicam).”
<br><br>
Brother Battey countered Malcolm's argument on “The Case of Joseph and Mary”, that the “humility theory” was rooted in Mary worship, with the idea that brother Malcolm's no-exception doctrine was also from the Catholics. According to brother Battey, the no-exception people do not get their doctrine from Paul in Romans 7:1-3, but from the Catholics and perhaps some others who preach a similar “doctrine of demons.” The idea that this is “Catholic Doctrine” is widespread. There are many Catholics who have at least given “lip service” to the idea of “no divorce” for any reason. The Catholics got this idea directly from the scriptures.
<br><br>
In a testimony to the belief of the Catholics on this doctrine, brother Clint De France wrote in the April, 2015 issue of the Old Paths Advocate in an article entitled “The Battey-Kniffen 'Open Bible Study' On Divorce and Remarriage”, that “This writer noticed two troublesome things about the 'No-Exception' Brethren. First, Malcom [sic] Kniffen claimed that the reason our congregations are divided over this issue is that people are getting divorced. The idea was that if there were no divorce we might be able to get past our different interpretations. But this is not what Kniffen's brethren practice. In the Philippines, divorce is illegal, and yet the No-Exception brethren have bitterly divided the Church in that country. This is terribly inconsistent. It appears bitterness is driving this division even more than doctrinal disagreement and that must change if we are ever to have unity.”
<br><br>
We might point out to brother Clint, who has admitted that “divorce is illegal” in the Philippines, that brethren should not promote divorce in a country where divorce is “illegal.” “No divorce” in the Philippines is both the “legal” and “historical” stance of that country. Perhaps we can thank the Catholics and the apostle Paul for this rather than good people like Raymond Stiner who has worked very hard in the Philippines and is to be commended. But who is “bitterly dividing” the church in the Philippines over divorce in that country? Not us, brother Clint. The Philippines are historically against divorce. Those who are promoting “illegal divorce” are the ones who are dividing the church over divorce in the Philippines. Accusing brethren, who do not promote divorce in the Philippines, of “bitterly” dividing the church over divorce will definitely not promote unity at home.
<br><br>
Brother Malcolm is right about the occurrence of divorce in this country. There was very little divorce and remarriage until after World War II. But married women were placed in the factories where they had ample opportunity to fraternize with those who were married. We are not personally arguing against all cases of the employment by women, but this condition in World War II took its toll on marriage. The horrors of war harmed the moral fabric of our country. Husbands were physically separated from their wives for many years. It caused divorce. This is just a historical fact.
<br><br>
After illegal divorce became widespread, people tried to “justify” their divorces and remarriages. Those seeking divorce were the ones causing the divisions in the churches. It is just like those seeking to change the communion service divided the church over the communion service. Before people sought to legitimize divorce, there was much more peace in the churches (and in the country) on this subject.
<br><br>
Just look at what divorce has done for our country and its churches. There is no statistical difference between divorces for believers and nonbelievers. We do not understand why divorce should be promoted by our brethren, as if divorce needs any promotion in our country where divorce has obviously overrun and ruined many families. Countless millions of children have been violently torn away from their parents. America has no reason to promote it. We shall likely be “vomited out” of the land because of divorce the way it is. Divorce is causing untold problems. This is one American “export” the Philippines can do without. Do we want the Phillipines to have the same problems over divorce that we are having? Putting our own personal lives and our own unhistorical and <b>questionable doctrines</b> ahead of the unity of the church is what is driving division in the churches.
<br><br>
Brother Battey's argument on “The Case of Joseph and Mary” would have Joseph causing his own “innocent” wife, Mary, to be in danger of committing adultery. He being a “just man” was willing to cause Mary to “commit adultery” because she was “highly favored”? What did Jesus say about this? Jesus said: “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” (Matthew 5:32) It seems ironic that Jesus was stating a rule that is so very applicable to his own Jewish mother.
<br><br>
Brother Battey, Clint (and others) would like to remove the applicability of Jesus' statement to his own mother in “The Case of Joseph and Mary.” Therefore, they have basically adopted the position of the Pharisees, and agree with the Pharisees in Matthew 5:31, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.” They believe in “no default” divorce for the Jewish man except in the case of “fornication.” Fornication always requires the death penalty. However, we made brother Battey confess that his absolute statement was wrong, and that fornication does not always require execution. (See Leviticus 19:20) He admitted that this was an “exception to the rule.” We have pointed out in previous posts that a “bond woman” does not have the same marital status as a “free woman.” Perhaps he will believe us now?
<br><br>
Case law indicates that Joseph did not have to fulfill the <b>condition of bringing an evil name</b> upon Mary. But brother Battey will not recognize conditions in case law. All that is necessary, under the law according to brother Battey, is to give the woman the proper “writing of divorcement” or have her executed in the case of fornication. Brother Malcolm correctly stated that Josesph did not have to start a process against Mary. But if Joseph had started a process, it would have been carried out by the elders. So we have a new exception. Divorce is allowable, under the law, except for fornication. Brother Battey has turned this issue completely inside out. We never know what to expect next.
<br><br>
Brother Battey was appropriately asked in the question and answer session if Jesus' authoritative teaching (Matthew 7:29) was not due to the “manner” in which Jesus taught them in the Sermon on the Mount. Brother Battey exclaimed the Jews taught their people just like we do. They basically quoted from the scriptures just like we do. Moses said this and Moses said that (almost book, chapter and verse except those handy references didn't yet exist).
<br><br>
Brother Battey does not seem to be familiar with the manner in which the Pharisees taught their people. But this is understandable because he doesn't want to even recognize the rabbis. He is not historically oriented on this subject. He just wants to know what the Bible says. “Let the Bible Speak.” Therefore, it is not surprising that he cannot describe the Rabbinical Method. We advise brother Battey to get himself a copy of the Mishnah, if he does not already have this extra-biblical source, and read where rabbi so and so said this and rabbi so and so said that. Practically every statement made in the Mishnah is prefaced by what some rabbi said. The rabbis didn't merely quote Moses. Mostly they quoted each other. They almost exclusively quoted Jewish authorities. It was called the “tradition of the elders.” It was not the commandments of God. Matthew 15 and Mark 7 show us that Jesus had problems with the traditions of the Pharisees versus the “commandment of God.” But brother Battey does not want to hear about such traditions. But he admits the tradition of the Pharisees is a biblical subject. Jesus did not have a problem with the Law of Moses. Jesus was exactly right when he said in the Sermon on the Mount “Ye have heard.” They knew what Jesus meant when he used that “politically incorrect” expression to refer to the Rabbinical Method. And it wasn't just a matter of Jewish literacy among the common people either.
<br><br>
It would be a “fallacy of composition” to take what Jesus commanded of the Jewish leper (to offer the legal gift according to the Law of Moses in Matthew 8:4), and then conclude that everything Jesus commanded thereafter pertained to the Law of Moses. We cannot extrapolate a single commandment to the leper into a general rule about all of Jesus' commandments. We cannot take the part (command to the leper) and make it pertain to the whole (Gospels entirely consisted of commandments of the Law). But this is the kind of “fallacy of composition” the exception brethren want us to make when they think they have discovered a single Gospel command.
<br><br>
Brother Malcolm correctly pointed out that the rich young ruler in Matthew 19 was commanded by Jesus to “keep the commandments” of the Law of Moses to inherit eternal life. But when brother Battey thinks he can find a “new commandment” (John 13:34, Matthew 18:20) which prophetically pertains to the Gospel, or does not destroy the Law (like love), he jumps to the blanket conclusion that every commandment Jesus gave pertains to the Gospel. (This includes Matthew 19:9.) He is looking for a “simple hermeneutic.” Like Clint, he is looking for that certain “false dichotomy” or general rule that will make the interpretation of Matthew 19:9 simple and automatic. He is looking for that “either or” and the mutually exclusive disjunction rule to use as a general and perhaps an almighty divining rod. The Gospels are either the “New Testament” or they are the “Old Testament.” But this disjunctive rule won't work as a general rule or a “simple hermeneutic.”
<br><br>
Brother Battey is looking for another distinctive “but I say” clincher. However, this “but I say” clincher has proven to be wrong because Jesus had a problem with the Pharisees in the Sermon on the Mount (not the Law of Moses). Jesus had a problem with what they had heard from the Pharisees in the Synagogue. But if brother Battey were healed of his leprosy (if he had leprosy) would he have to obey the commandment Jesus gave to the Jewish leper and offer his gift according to the Law? No. Brother Battey would rightly conclude that Jesus gave this commandment to a Jewish leper under the Law. He knows he couldn't obey this command even if he would. He knows that context is always very important (except in the case of Matthew 19:9).
<br><br>
But we do have a “simple hermeneutic” about Jesus' teaching. <b>"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."</b> (1 Peter 2:22) Jesus did no destructive teaching. He never blasphemed. He was not a hypocrite. We use this rule as a guide throughout the Gospels. Once we realize what sin is, then we do not accuse Jesus of sinning <b>EVER</b>. Jesus thought one of the worst sins was hypocrisy. Constantly getting Jesus into situations where Jesus accuses the Pharisees of sinning (and then sins himself) simply cannot be tolerated. Jesus was no hypocrite. He never used doublespeak.
<br><br>
The scheme of redemption required Jesus to be a perfect sacrifice. Jesus did no sin is one of the few absolute and categorical statements that we make and that we accept about Jesus. For example, Moses said in Deuteronomy 4:2, “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.” This is a good definition of obedience. This would keep a Jew from sinning. Therefore, we do not accuse Jesus of adding to, subtracting from or outright rejecting the Law of Moses (like Clint De France did in his advertisement of the “Open Study” in Seminole, Oklahoma). One definition of sin is: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4) Brother Battey and Clint do not seem to take this definition of sin (missing the mark and acting unlawfully) very seriously. But we do.
<br><br>
Clint accuses brother Malcolm of stretching his analogy when brother Malcolm compares marriage to the relationship of Jesus with his church. (Ephesians 5) But what about stretching the analogy of making a will before you die? First, you make your will (while you are alive) and then the will becomes effective (after you die). Therefore, Jesus gave Matthew 19:9 before he died and then it became effective after he died?
<br><br>
Does this general rule even pertain to Matthew 19:9? Isn't this a “fallacy of decomposition” concerning giving a will and executing a will? In Matthew 19:9, the Pharisees asked a present tense question and they got a present tense answer just like we should expect. But we heard a lot of equivocation from brother Battey about what the definition of <b>is, is</b>. Brother Battey says the disciples of Jesus all understood what the Law is. They understood that Jesus was speaking about the future because Jesus contradicted the Law. They recognized it was a contradiction. Therefore, they knew Jesus could not be talking about the current Law and was talking about the future kingdom law even though his disciples exclaimed “<b>it is</b> not good to marry.” They exclaimed the present tense in a future sense of the word according to brother Battey. If they all understood when someone was contradicting the law on this issue, then why did the Pharisees ask their question in the first place? Why were there two schools of thought on the subject? Why did the disciples exclaim “if the case of the man be so with his wife <b>it is</b> not good to marry” instead of “<b>it will</b> not be good to marry”? (Matthew 19:10)
<br><br>
There is a problem with stretching the analogy of Jesus giving his will and then executing it later. Jesus said: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye <b>cannot bear them now</b>. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:12-13) Did Jesus give a <b>partial will</b> before he died? Is it normal to give a partial will before you die? Isn't this stretching the analogy of a last will and testament procedure?
<br><br>
But Jesus did not tell his disciples everything about the kingdom while he was alive. Jesus left much of that to the Holy Ghost. Jesus also said to his disciples: “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.” (Matthew 16:19-20) Were the disciples of Jesus both legislators and executors of his will? (This was a very good question by brother Don Bounds from Bloomington, Indiana.) The disciples legislated many things Jesus had not given them in the Gospels. At other times they did not legislate at all. For example, Malcolm pointed out the disciples of Jesus did not bind “foot washing” even though Jesus washed their feet. (John 13:8-9) Therefore, what practices and examples were bound? Was “foot washing” bound by the example and the command of Jesus? Brother Malcolm correctly pointed out that many concepts in the “Law of Moses” were simply “brought over”, borrowed and placed in the New Testament. They are pretty much “timeless or eternal” truths under any law.
<br><br>
Brother Battey makes much out of Paul's expression “the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 7. He infers Paul got some of the commandments by the Lord from some other avenue than by divine inspiration (such as Jesus' preaching ministry). However, Paul was not one of the original apostles, and he did not accompany Jesus from the baptism of John. (Acts 1:22) Malcolm correctly quotes from Galatians 1:11-12, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Therefore, it is wrong to make too much out of “the Lord” expression in 1 Corinthians 7.
<br><br>
Brother Battey plays “fast and loose” with his implications in the “Open Study.” He likes to insert implications where there are no such implications. For example, Jesus agrees with the Pharisees and disagrees with Moses. (This is an unlikely scenario. In fact, it is usually the opposite. Jesus disagrees with the Pharisees and agrees with Moses. Jesus was not an adversary of Moses. He was a champion of the Law. But Jesus was an adversary of the Pharisees. Brother Battey constantly chooses the wrong enemies for Jesus.)
<br><br>
Brother Battey has Jesus agreeing with his enemies, the Pharisees, and disagreeing with Moses in Matthew 19:8. “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives <b>[for every cause]</b>: but from the beginning it was not so.” There is no such implication in this passage. This implication exists only in the mind of brother Battey. The “every cause” position was the position of the school of Hillel (not Moses). Jesus was just answering why Moses gave them a writing of divorcement. We could more appropriately have implied <b>[for unchastity]</b> but Jesus did not make that implication either. But Jesus explicitly states it was for unchastity or fornication in verse 9. <b>No implication is necessary.</b> Brother Battey defines “some uncleanness” or “matter of nakedness” as “every cause.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) How brother Battey gets “every cause” out of “a matter of nakedness” is strange. How can he get many causes out of one cause?
<br><br>
In Deuteronomy 24:3, the secondary cause listed for divorce (“hate”), is a more likely candidate for “every cause” than the primary cause for divorce (“matter of nakedness”) listed in Deuteronomy 24:1. A man can control the “putting away” for a “matter of nakedness.” But he cannot control why the second husband puts his former wife away. This is purely descriptive of what is likely to happen and is not prescriptive of something which God necessarily approves.
<br><br>
We do not believe that the woman had a right to become the next man's wife. The term “she may go” used in the King James Version is often translated “and she go” in many translations (even in the King James Version in Jeremiah 3:1). This is descriptive of what the woman is just likely to do as Matthew 5:32 is descriptive of what the “innocent woman” is likely to do after she is put away. She is “caused” to commit adultery. Furthermore, her original husband may not take her back “after that she is <b>defiled</b>.” (Deuteronomy 24:4) Moses states in Leviticus 18:20, “Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to <b>defile</b> thyself with her.” In Numbers, 5:13, Moses speaks about the Sotah ritual. He says: “And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be <b>defiled</b>, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner.” Therefore, in Deuteronomy 24:4, a man may not take a wife back who has been “adulterated” or defiled. If an innocent wife can be defiled (Matthew 5:32) by a second marriage, then why cannot a guilty wife also be defiled by a second marriage?
<br><br>
Brother Allen Baily, in the question and answer session, also inserts an implication where there is no such implication. Mark 10:12 states: “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Brother Baily interprets this passage to mean a woman has a right to initiate a divorce. In fact, he uses the word “initiate.” Jesus denied this right. When Jesus denied a Jewish woman the right to divorce, he did not imply that a Christian woman has a right to initiate a divorce. No implied right to any exception is implied or can even be inferred from his passage. But some Jewish women, such a Herodias, were claiming the right to divorce. Jesus was acknowledging this trend because the Jews were being assimilated.
<br><br>
Fred Kirbo recognized the value of Jewish history on the subject of “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” many years ago. He said in his sermon on “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage”: “Now friends, look here! There were two schools of thought going at that time (and they were red hot!). There was the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. They were divided on the very subject we're talking about right now: the marriage question. Some of them were teaching the Law of Moses allowed them to divorce for every cause (that was the school of Hillel), while those of Shammai taught that they could only divorce for the one cause of fornication. Now, you can easily see what school Jesus goes with here; the school of Shammai. Why, there was a great division on the marriage question even before you and I ever thought about arguing the question. Now, I want to tell you something and I want you to take it home with you. This came from a brother up north just a few days ago. I thought that this was good thinking and just good sound sense. He said, 'You know, long before we ever studied the marriage question, they were having trouble over it back yonder under the Law of Moses, whether they could divorce for one cause or for any cause. Now, since there are so many hard things about the Law of Moses on the marriage question (it even caused trouble among themselves; they couldn't get together on it back there), why don't we try to find out what side the Lord was on, then we'll settle this thing.' On whose side was the Lord? Whom did he favor? Since they couldn't agree back there when they were arguing the question, let's find out from Jesus. Let's find out which was right: whether they could divorce for one cause or for every cause. (And he ought to know, brother! If Jesus doesn't know, I don't know of anyone who does!) They had put the question to him, 'Is it lawful?' And Jesus replied, 'There is but one cause: Fornication!' Now, that's going to save a lot of argument! That's going to save the trouble of going back into the Old Testament Law and digging around back there...studying polygamy, and David's wives, and Jacob's wife, and all of these many different things that you and I, Brother Buffington, used to study so much about. If you want to save a lot of time and trouble, all you have to do is ask Jesus, and he'll tell you! He said that there wasn't but one cause. Now, we could say, 'Well, maybe he didn't know,' and then head back over there and go to digging up all of these many difficult cases. But you know, I'm just pretty well satisfied to take Jesus at his word and say that he's right about it.”
<br><br>
All we can add to what Fred said here is “amen.” We listened a lot to Fred's sermons growing up. He was interesting, homey, plain, funny and sometimes even crude. He was unique. We usually remembered his sermons. More than this, we noted his every word. We don't worship him now, like we did when we were young, but he was a good man. Fred was one of our childhood heroes. Several times Fred referred to us as his “Timothy” with a big smile on his face. It was a special treat and an honor.
<br><br>
Some have tried to imply that Fred was “not his own man.” If brother Homer Gay had lived, they say, Fred would have merely “agreed to disagree.” Some claimed our grandfather, H. E. Robertson caused Fred to get off the fence and to make trouble over this issue. But those of us who knew Fred disagree. Fred wanted to go to heaven. He said this many times. Fred also knew if he ever “got off the fence” on this divorce issue he would get himself in trouble. He would pay the price. It is reported that he said he would have to get himself, “a cow, a sow and a plow and go to farming” because he knew he would no longer be the popular fellow that he once was just by taking a stand on the conservative side of the marriage question. But he also knew he must stand for tempered reason on this subject against the coming tides of divorce. He sometimes commented that he felt like he was standing in the sea trying to hold back the tide.
<br><br>
Fred knew about the history of Shammai and Hillel. He didn't discount their history or their debate like some do. He knew Jesus wasn't operating in a “historical vacuum.” There were good reasons for Jesus to say what he said. “But we guess that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” Fred was not of that sort.
<br><br>
Fred knew about the debate between Shammai and Hillel, but he never reported the original source. Therefore, we went to ask the local rabbi about the source of the debate in the early seventies. We figured the local rabbi ought to know. He did. As we surveyed, with some perplexity, the volumes of Hebrew writings (oral traditions) at the back of the synagogue, the Jewish Rabbi gave us the Jewish answer we had been searching for in his ancient Jewish writings. The source of the debate was in the third division of the Mishnah (Women) in Gittin 9:10. We could not read the Hebrew writings, but we remembered the source. It was not from Adam Clarke (or any other Christian commentator). Christian commentators mentioned Shammai and Hillel often enough but they never seemed to cite the original source. It was frustrating. But this was the original source, straight from a Jewish rabbi and his Rabbinical Traditions.
<br><br>
So, this “Goy” left the synagogue with a smile on his face. It was before the age of the internet. Now there was no excuse to be ignorant of this historical debate. This knowledge was hard won in those days, but it is easy to find on the internet today. The rabbi was actually an unbiased observer who was merely curious as to why some Goy would be interested in some of his ancient Jewish traditions. But his traditions told us that Jesus was not operating in a historical vacuum. Jesus addressed real issues. He was not just spouting some new Christian doctrine. Therefore, Jesus was a real historical figure. Unknown to the rabbi, it increased our faith in a certain Jewish Messiah who knew very well his Jewish roots.dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-74313442577642271302015-03-13T16:32:00.000-05:002015-03-16T07:30:36.080-05:00Clint's Small Precursor to the Debate in SeminoleWe have used the debate in Seminole as a “case study” for some of the concepts we have entered into our previous posts on our blog. Unfortunately, we believe that many of these concepts require repetition because some of them are not often heard in some pulpits. Therefore, these concepts are sometimes foreign and require some repetition. Debate also helps to counterbalance some of the sacred cows we encounter. Real world examples, such as the debate in Seminole, can be helpful too if it is not used as some kind of peer pressure tool to keep the herd in check. Dialog is beneficial too. However, it is very difficult to have dialogs when the subject matter is basically taboo or does not fit the norm in a particular brotherhood or congregation.<br>
<br>
Clint De France, on his very informative and interesting web site, has given us a very small preview of some of the ideas which may be debated by brother Malcolm and brother Battey in Seminole, Oklahoma on Saturday, March 14 at 6:00 p. m. in the Jeff Johnston Fine Arts Center in Seminole, OK at the <u><a href="https://www.google.com/maps/place/2701+Boren+Blvd,+Seminole,+OK+74868/@35.2469174,-96.7047912,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b3970047d4b26b:0xdd045be99ad0cb5c">Seminole State College.</a></u> In Clint's post, <u><a href="http://www.christianlandmark.com/2015/02/07/are-the-gospels-old-testament-books/">"Are the Gospels Old Testament Books?"</a></u>, Clint explains: “This writer will be moderating an open Bible study between Malcom Kniffen and George Battey on the subject of divorce and re-marriage, in which the subject of this article will be a major point of discussion.” Since Clint will be the moderator in this debate, and the subject of Clint's post “will be a major point of the discussion”, we want to review the subject matter of Clint's post. We have no ill will against Clint. But we strongly disagree with some of his statements.<br>
<br>
At the start of his post, Clint asks these questions: “Do the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John belong to the Old or New Testament? Put another way, do the Gospels reveal the Mosaic Covenant of God with Israel, or the Christian Covenant of God with the Church?” <br>
<br>
Our answer is simple. Must we take brother Clint's choice? We do not even accept the wording of the questions that were “Put another way.” For example, part of the choice, “do the Gospels reveal the Mosaic Covenant of God with Israel” is irrelevant and incidental. But in fact they do. Why does Clint even juxtapose this part of his statement against the revelation of “the Christian Covenant of God with the Church”? We suppose that Clint wants us to decide one way or the other. Why? Once again, we are presented with a “false dichotomy” where we are expected to decide one way or the other. Either choice would be wrong. It is typical “black and white” thinking which supposes that these are the only two alternatives; and that these alternatives are mutually exclusive. But they are not only two alternatives; and they are not mutually exclusive. Also the difference between the conjunction “and” and the disjunction “or” also makes a big difference. “And” combines. The exclusive “Or” separates. Clint wants us to separate that which can be combined. Jesus taught a “preparatory Gospel” and he confirmed the truth of the Old Testament. These efforts were not contradictory. This is how we would explain the work of Jesus.<br>
<br>
Let us give this example. In brother Battey's pamphlet <b>“'No-Exception' For Divorce (Is this true?)”</b> on page 22, brother Battey has a section entitled <b>“<u>VARIOUS PROBLEMS.</u>”</b> Brother Battey presents this division under that section: <b>“<u>The no-exception position ignores the mission of John.</u>”</b><br>
<br>
This is a misrepresentation. We do not ignore the mission of John. As proof for this false representation, brother Battey says that we claim: “During His earthly ministry, Jesus could not teach anything differently than what Mosaic Law already said. Jesus is restricted to clarifying Mosaic Law. He spends His entire life-calling people back to the Mosaic Law without teaching one statute of His soon coming, new kingdom.” We deny every single misrepresentation. We are not even sure how Jesus doing something is even related to his false proposition that our position ignores John's mission.<br>
<br>
The Prophets gave the authority for the work of John the Baptist. “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; <b>As it is written in the prophets</b>, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall <b>prepare thy way</b> before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” (Mark 1:1-3) Was it necessary for the Prophet Isaiah to define every single action that John the Baptist took in preparing the way of the Lord? Would Isaiah have to give the complete details of John's work for his work to be authorized? This was unnecessary just like it was unnecessary to describe the dimension of every single board which Noah placed in the Ark. However, the building of the Ark was authorized.<br>
<br>
We defy brother Battey, or Clint, to show us where this Baptism of John was a “new covenant” work. It was a transitional work. It was a preparatory work. But it was not part of the “new covenant.” If it were part of the “new covenant”, then why did Paul rebaptize those who knew only the Baptism of John? (Acts 19:1-7) This work was a transitional work between the institution of the covenants and it was provided for by the Prophets in the Old Testament.<br>
<br>
John's Baptism was a baptism of repentance. This baptism required the Jews to “get ready” for the coming kingdom and the new covenant during this transition period. Repentance requires an “existing law.” When Jesus asked the Pharisees where the Baptism of John came from, they would have known had they been able to associate the work of John the Baptist with the “messenger” we can read about in Isaiah 40:3 or Malachi 3:1-5. But they could not do that just like they could not recognize the return of Elijah the Prophet in Malachi 4:5. Elijah was a great prophet under the Old Testament. John, who came in the spirit and the power of Elijah, was claimed by Jesus to be the greatest prophet under the Old Testament. Jesus said: “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Matthew 11:11) Why was John the Baptist less than the least in the kingdom? Answer. He was never in the kingdom.<br>
<br>
Brother Clint says: “This writer... believes that indeed the Gospels should be reckoned a part of the revelation of the New Testament of Jesus Christ, and that the majority of the teaching and instruction found within the four Evangelists is in fact binding on the Church.” Whatever the writer believes, there is no general rule like this which can be applied to Matthew 19:9.<br>
<br>
Clint also says: “Christ and His apostles were subject to the Law of Moses (Galatians 4.4), however from John the Baptist to the Cross is the continuous message that the Messianic Kingdom (the Church) is “at hand” (Matthew 3.2, 4.17, 10.7; Mark 1.5; Luke 16.16). And Christ himself often teaches things that would have no application at the time, but would later apply to the church.”<br>
<br>
In Matthew 19:9-10 the disciples of Jesus knew that Jesus' teachings immediately applied to them as Jews under the Law. What Jesus said in Matthew 19:9 did have an <b>“application at the time”</b> contrary to the inappropriate rule which Clint tries to impose on Matthew 19:9. Jesus did not spew forth meaningless and inapplicable answers to Jewish questions. His statements were always very much to the point. Matthew 19:9 did not “later apply to the church.” Clint has introduced a disconnect between the questions which the Pharisees asked Jesus and the answers which Jesus gave to them. Clint would like to <b>separate</b> the answers from the questions. Clint uses disjunctions. The answer which Jesus gave to the Pharisees was both appropriate and applicable at the time.<br>
<br>
Brother Clint appeals to the time when the Gospels were written. He says: “The first reason why the Gospels cannot possibly be considered Old Testament books is that the Apostle Paul attaches the abrogation of the Law of Moses to the death of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2.14), which is seen in Jesus’ post resurrection claim, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth…” (Matthew 28.18). Formally, the New Institution began on the Day of Pentecost and all of this transpired in approximately A.D. 33. However, the Gospels were not written for years after! Matthew was written around A.D. 50, Luke A.D. 58, Mark A.D. 68, and finally John in A.D. 90. So, the earliest Gospel was written almost twenty years after the Old Testament was nailed to the cross; the last Gospel forty years after that!”<br>
<br>
What difference does it make when the Gospels were written? They were histories. They refer to events that took place in the past. They were accurate accounts. They were inspired. When we describe events in the past, we cannot imply that those events necessarily pertained to the future. The Gospels were historical and written so that we might believe. (John 20:31)<br>
<br>
Clint has Jesus adding to the Law, taking away from the Law and basically blaspheming, contradicting and outright rejecting the Law. Clint says: “Jesus taught New Testament teaching in public settings as well, such as in the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5.1-7.29, Jesus gives instruction and doctrine that <b>adds</b> to the Old Testament teaching (Matthew 5.21-22), <b>subtracts</b> from Old Testament teaching (Matthew 5.31-32), and <b>rejects</b> Old Testament teaching (Matthew 5.38-42); but when giving these teachings he gave a qualifying charge: 'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven' (Matthew 5.17-19) By saying that the Law and the Prophets must be obeyed until 'all is fulfilled' he was saying, 'until the Son of Man is risen from the dead' (Luke 24.44-46).”<br>
<br>
Indirectly charging Jesus with blasphemy is a serious thing. But brother Clint manages to do it. Brother Battey manages to do it too. It seems that Clint is following in brother Battey's footsteps. This is a bad thing. The Jews could not prove Jesus was guilty of sin. (John 8:46) But brother Clint and brother Battey indirectly do claim that Jesus was indeed guilty of sin. Clint should be more careful or else he might well be accused of charging Jesus with blasphemy. This is a serious thing.<br>
<br>
Clint uses a slight of hand technique where Jesus gives with his right hand and takes away with his left hand. Jesus both affirms and denies his support for the Law. Jesus says he is not going to sin against the Law; but then he goes ahead and does it anyway. How can Jesus say he is not going to do something and then with impunity go ahead and do it? Sounds like some of our politicians. I am not going to do that but then proceeds to do it.<br>
<br>
It reminds us of the parable Jesus gave to the Pharisees about the two sons. One son said he would not go, but he went. The other son said that he would go but he did not go. Jesus asked the Pharisees: "Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the <b>way of righteousness</b>, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.” (Matthew 21:28-32) Jesus was also baptized with the Baptism of John to <b>“fulfill all righteousness.”</b> (Matthew 3:15) But the Pharisees were not baptized. Jesus always fulfilled the righteousness of the Law because Jesus was not a hypocrite like the Pharisees. Jesus never said one thing and did another. Jesus never asked anyone to do something that he could not do himself. He could always do more. He never accused anyone of breaking the Law and then broke the Law himself. Exception preachers invariably and indirectly make Jesus as a hypocrite.<br>
<br>
Clint claims the “Be Attitudes” (Matthew 5.1-7.29) were <b>additions</b> to the Law of Moses. No. They were blessings prophesied by the Prophets. What makes them additions? Why doesn't Clint just run a few references on these “Be Attitudes” like we did? “Blessed are the poor in spirit....” (Psalms 51:17, Isaiah 57:15, Isaiah 66:2) “Blessed are they that mourn....” (Isaiah 61:2-3) “Blessed are the meek....” (Psalms 37:11) “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness....” (Isaiah 55:1, Isaiah 65:13) “Blessed are the merciful....” (Psalms 41:1) This took us a few minutes looking in the margin of our King James Version for references from the Old Testament. Verse 29 is just hyperbole to emphasize some good advice. Perhaps Clint is forgetting that Jesus was infinitely familiar with the scriptures and the blessings prophesied by them? Jesus knew and greatly respected the scriptures. But Clint does not give the scriptures their due respect. However, Jesus gives them his respect. He recounts their blessings.<br>
<br>
In Matthew 5:21-22 Jesus pointed to the underlying causes of murder. Murder stems from rage and anger. This is not an addition to the Law. This is just why people go out and kill other people even under the Law of Moses.<br>
<br>
In the account of Cain and Able, the Lord actually predicted that Cain would sin. Cain was angry because his brother Abel's offering was accepted and his was not. “And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” (Genesis 4:6-7)<br>
<br>
The Lord was very graphical. We can almost see a lion or a wild beast crouching at the door ready to take Cain as he exits from his house. Satan also crouches like a lion and is lurking at our door and ready to take us for his prey. Cain immediately went out of his house and invited his brother out into the field where he killed him just like the Lord had predicted. The Lord could see it in Cain's face. It was the first murder. And it all came about because Cain was angry with both God and with his brother.<br>
<br>
Jesus was also using graphical language to emphasize the reasons for murder. He was not <b>adding</b> to the Law. He was using hyperbole. There is no literal council on this earth waiting for the man who calls his brother a fool. However, we need to be sure that God will judge inappropriate anger. We also need to understand that people brought up in oral and vocal societies often used vivid language for emphasis and to strengthen the memory of their accounts. They were not prevaricating when they exaggerated for emphasis. They also were not creating new laws. They were just communicating. Perhaps people in the social media might call it “drama.” But Jesus was a powerful communicator. Unfortunately, Clint is mistaking Jesus' graphical language and intimate knowledge of the scriptures for creating new laws.<br>
<br>
Murder proceeds from the heart. Those things which proceed from the heart are those things which defile the man. (Matthew 15:11) Jesus said this in the context of accusing the Pharisees of vain worship by teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)<br>
<br>
Just before Jesus gave the underlying cause for murder in Matthew 5:21-22, he made this statement in Matthew 5:20. “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.”<br>
<br>
Jesus had a problem with the Pharisees. Jesus did not say, except your righteousness exceed the righteousness that is in the Law, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Jesus himself was justified by his righteous under the Law. Jesus did not have a problem with the Law. He had a problem with the Pharisees. In fact, the Pharisees hated him and were trying to kill him. Perhaps that is why Jesus pointed this out about the righteousness of the Pharisees.<br>
<br>
Just before Jesus made this statement about the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, he gave a disclaimer and made sure they understood the constraints under which he was operating. Clint and brother Battey see no such constraints. When they do see them, they simply ignore them or they claim that Jesus was merely qualifying the reasons for the sins he was about to commit in the sermon which he was about to preach. They give these constraints token recognition. Brother Battey says emphatically that Jesus was the Messiah (and he implies that, as the Messiah, Jesus could do pretty much whatever Messiahs happen to do). This is doublespeak. Jesus was not his own standard. He did not live by the idea that every man should do what is right in his own eyes. (Judges 17:6) The Law of Moses was a standard by which Jesus conducted his entire life in virtually everything that he said and he did. Jesus went by the scriptures in his temptation; and Jesus went by the scriptures in his Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was totally aware of his limitations. People talk about “Walking Bibles.” Jesus was a “Walking Bible” and more. Jesus was the Word made flesh. (John 1:14) He in no wise engaged in any form of self mutilation or self destruction except when he died to the Law on the Cross. Jesus nailed the Law to the Cross because he was that Law. The Law died with him. How is that for identity?<br>
<br>
What were Jesus' limitations? Jesus explains: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 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.” Was Jesus “least in the kingdom”? No. Jesus' life was completely circumscribed by the Law. He was not “least in the kingdom of heaven” by any means. He is much more. He is “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 19:16) That is the title engraved on his thigh.<br>
<br>
Clint says Jesus “<b>subtracts</b> from Old Testament teaching (Matthew 5.31-32).” This is likely the scripture in which Clint is really trying to make his point. Clint believes that Moses allowed divorce for virtually any reason, except for fornication. But, according to Clint and brother Battey, in the case of fornication, the person must always be executed. Clint virtually adopts the position of Hillel (except for the exception part). Hillel allowed divorce for fornication too. But Jesus was more conservative than both Moses and Hillel. Jesus only allowed divorce for fornication. Therefore, Jesus “<b>subtracts</b> from Old Testament teaching.” When Jesus subtracts from the Old Testament, he leaves the exception (according to Clint and brother Battey) available for Christians.<br>
<br>
No Clint. Jesus <b>subtracts</b> from the “tradition of the Pharisees” and not the Old Testament. Clint and brother Battey constantly confuse and consistently conflate the problems Jesus had with the Pharisees to Jesus' supposed desire to subtract from, add to and simply reject the Old Testament. But Jesus had no such desire. Jesus specifically said in Matthew 5:17-20 that he had no such desire and that he would do no such thing. But brother Battey and Clint will not take Jesus' disclaimer (except in “token” form). They merely give his disclaimer and the constraints Jesus was working with “lip service.” They reduce Jesus' disclaimer to a mere inconvenience for them when they try to make their arguments.<br>
<br>
We repeat. Jesus did not say that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness found in the Old Testament. Jesus was not comparing their righteousness with the Old Testament standard. Instead Jesus said that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the <b>scribes and the Pharisees.</b> Jesus was comparing against the false righteousness found in the scribes and the Pharisees. He was giving examples where the Pharisees went wrong. These were not examples of where the Old Testament went wrong. It is horribly wrong to equate the righteousness found in the Old Testament with the righteousness found in the scribes and the Pharisees. They are simply not the same thing.<br>
<br>
The righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees was based upon their “oral traditions.” The “oral traditions” are not in the Old Testament. Jesus subtracts from the traditions. Brother Battey does not want to talk about the traditions because he supposes it is not even biblical to talk about the “traditions of the elders.” However it is biblical because Jesus speaks about it himself in Matthew 15, Mark 7, Matthew 23 and Matthew 5:21-48.<br>
<br>
But the Pharisees had indeed subtracted from the Law of Moses. Jesus had not subtracted from the Law, but they had subtracted from the Law. And this is what Jesus was concerned about. Jesus was defending the Law against the traditions. Brother Battey and Clint do not recognize that Jesus was the supreme defender of the Law against the oral traditions. Therefore, they find themselves on the side of the Pharisees.<br>
<br>
How had the Pharisees subtracted? Well they had eliminated the proper cause for a Jewish man to divorce his wife. Hillel had basically concluded that the Jewish man had access to “no fault” divorce. All the Jewish man had to do was to give his Jewish wife the proper “writing of divorcement.” And both Clint and brother Battey essentially agree.<br>
<br>
However, Jesus said if the man practiced “no fault” divorce, he was causing his wife to “commit adultery.” This was not speculative Christian doctrine. This was something that was happening every single day among the Jews. That's why they were “A wicked and adulterous generation.” (Matthew 12:39)<br>
<br>
But brother Clint and brother Battey have taken a position which makes it practically impossible for a Jewish man to violate the seventh commandment. It was practically impossible for a man to commit adultery. Therefore, Jesus was wrong to call them an “adulterous generation.” However, Jesus was right. Brother Battey and Clint are wrong because they have essentially aligned themselves with the Pharisees against Jesus. They just don't know that yet. Perhaps some day they will.<br>
<br>
Brother Battey claims <b>“<u>The no-exception position ignores the problem of polygamy.</u>”</b> Jesus also ignored that problem. Brother Battey has a more serious problem. The exception was not intended for a woman. A Jewish woman could not initiate a divorce. She could not put her husband away for fornication. She could not give her Jewish husband a “Get.” But brother Battey and Clint both want the Christian woman to be able to divorce their husbands for fornication. But this is not found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9. We challenge them to find where Jesus said the woman could divorce her husband in any of these passages.<br>
<br>
If Jesus addressed the problem of polygamy, he did it only indirectly. Jesus was talking about a man causing his wife to commit adultery by putting her away. This act also caused him to be involved in her adultery. He also committed adultery by causing her to commit adultery. She was “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.” In Matthew 19:9 and in Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus did not address the situation of a Jewish man <b>keeping</b> his current wife and getting himself another woman. He only addressed the problem of a man putting away his wife. This problem was not about a Jewish man having multiple wives.<br>
<br>
Clint says that Jesus <b>rejected</b> the Law of Moses in Matthew 5:38-42. Jesus was not talking about “due process of the law” in these verses. He was speaking about taking personal and unlawful vengeance. Everything had to be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. The Jews did not have the right to take the Law into their own hands.<br>
<br>
In this post, we have referred to some of the teachings of brother Clint and brother Battey because we strongly disagree with their teachings. We don't know them personally and have no particular ill will against them. In fact, we like Clint's web site very much. We do ask that Clint, as the moderator of this debate, will take a “head count” of those who agree with brother Battey's “humility theory” in “The Case of Joseph and Mary.” Perhaps they need remedial or comprehensive reading classes?<br>
<br>
There is a difference between just reading and being able to comprehend what we read. To read successfully, it is necessary to make reasonable interpretations of the inferences and the implications that are always present in any set of passages. Brother Battey has made some interpretations about “The Case of Joseph and Mary” that are simply beyond the pale. Actually, our jaws dropped when we read his interpretation.
dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-69429716126096982102015-01-26T19:44:00.001-06:002015-01-29T13:12:51.285-06:00Some Responses to Our Questions for Brother BatteyWe did get some replies to our inquiry about agreement or disagreement with brother Battey's position on “The Case of Joseph and Mary.” We can definitely say that, in general, there has been a lot of interest for the blog post on “<span style="color: navy;"> <u><a href="https://dwightopines.blogspot.com/2014/12/some-comments-and-questions-for-brother.html">Some Comments and Questions for Brother Battey.”</a></u></span> Activity levels have been high.<br />
<br />
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.” <br />
<br />
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?)
<br />
<br />
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 <u><a href="https://www.google.com/maps/place/2701+Boren+Blvd,+Seminole,+OK+74868/@35.2469174,-96.7047912,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b3970047d4b26b:0xdd045be99ad0cb5c">Seminole State College.</a></u><br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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 <b>any reason</b>, 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. <br />
<br />
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.”
<br />
<br />
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. <u><a href="https://dwightopines.blogspot.com/2012/09/traditionof-elders-in-matthew-15-and.html"> “Traditions of the Elders.”</a></u>
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
<div class="western">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Gittin 9:10 A. The House of Shammai say, “A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>unchastity</b></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">, B. “since it is said, </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Because he has found in her</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b> indecency in anything</b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(Deuteronomy 24:1).” C. And the House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his dish, D. “since it is said, </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Because he has found in her indecency in </span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>anything</b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.” E. R. Aqiba says, “Even if he found someone else prettier than she, “since it is said, </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">And it shall be if she find </span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>no favor</b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;"> in his eyes </span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(Deuteronomy 24:1).” (Neusner, 1987)</span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></div>
As we can see, the rabbis emphasized different terminology in Deuteronomy 24:1. Their definitions ranged from the very strict definition or emphasis of Shammai to the ultra-liberal definition or emphasis of Hillel. However, Shammai actually tried to define the words that were the most appropriate for the grounds for divorce. As we have tried to emphasize in other posts, “some uncleanness” or “a matter of nakedness” or “indecency in anything” is the same Hebrew terminology used throughout Leviticus 18 and 20 for having inappropriate sexual relationships (fornication) with those who were prohibited. Claiming that a “matter of nakedness” in Deuteronomy 24:1 cannot refer to fornication is like claiming that a discovery of “nakedness”, in Leviticus 18 and 20, cannot mean fornication. The idea is absurd.
<br />
<br />
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.”<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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. “<b>It hath been said</b>, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him <b>give her a writing of divorcement</b>.” 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.<br />
<br />
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 <b>lawful</b>?” The second important content correspondence indicator in the question is “<b>for a man</b> 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 <b>any reason</b>.” See our post <span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="https://dwightopines.blogspot.com/2013/10/chronological-and-content.html">"Chronological and Content Correspondence."</a></u></span></span>
<br />
<span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><br /></span></span>
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.<br />
<br />
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<b> for every cause.”</b><br />
In Matthew 19:7 the Pharisees asked Jesus: “Why did Moses then<b> command</b> to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” But in Mark 10:3 Jesus asked them: “What did Moses <b>command</b> 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.)
<br />
<br />
Perhaps by Mark 10:4 the Pharisees had gotten Jesus' point? They answered Jesus: “Moses <b>suffered</b> 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 <b>suffered</b> 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.
<br />
<br />
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 <b>continued </b>from the “hardness of heart” reason Moses gave the precept with the “<b>And</b> I say” conjunction that summed up the precept Moses gave. This summation was not a contradiction against Moses. In Mark 10:2 they <b>did not ask</b> about the details for “every cause”, and in Mark 10:5 Jesus <b>did not tell</b> them the details for “every cause.” However, the exception is implied in their question and in Jesus' answer.<br />
<br />
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, <b>EVER</b> (under Mosaic law).”
<br />
<br />
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 <b>hast played the harlot</b> 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.
<br />
<br />
Again, we read: “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel <b>committed adultery</b> I had <b>put her away</b>, and <b>given her a bill of divorce</b> 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.
<br />
<br />
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 <b>“Messiah”</b>, 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 <b>tempted like as </b><i><b>we are, yet </b></i><b>without sin</b>.” 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.
<br />
<br />
Brother Battey does not consider “conditional language” in “case law” very seriously. For example, <b>If</b> any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,<b>And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her</b>, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: <b>Then</b> 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; <b>he may not put her away all his days. </b>”(Deuteronomy 22:13-19)
<br />
<br />
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 “<b>give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her”? </b> 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.)<br />
<br />
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 <span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water#Christian_references">Sotah.</a></span></span></u></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span> <br />
<span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></u></span></span>
Numbers 5:12-31 talks about the Sotah in these conditional terms: “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, <b>If</b> any man's wife <b>go aside (Sotah)</b>, and commit a trespass against him, And a man <b>lie with her carnally</b>, and it be <b>hid from the eyes</b> of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be <b>no witness</b> against her, neither she be <b>taken with the manner</b>; And the <b>spirit of jealousy come upon him</b>, 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: <b>Then </b>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.”
<br />
<br />
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.”
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
For example, Leviticus 19:20 it says: “And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a <b>bondmaid</b>, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, <b>because she was not free</b>.” 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?
<br />
<br />
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)
<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.
dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-42101691513049715752014-12-26T02:05:00.000-06:002015-02-08T20:38:53.014-06:00Some Comments and Questions for Brother BatteyThere 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.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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!)”<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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”?<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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.”<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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 <a href="http://dwightopines.blogspot.com/2014/12/more-correspondence-scenarios.html">"More Correspondence Scenarios."</a><br><br>
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?<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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).<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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 <a href="http://dwightopines.blogspot.com/2012/04/waco-address-was-asked-to-give-speech.html">"Waco Address."</a><br><br>
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.”<br><br>
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 <a href="http://dwightopines.blogspot.com/2012/09/traditionof-elders-in-matthew-15-and.html">"Traditions of the Elders"</a> and <a href="http://dwightopines.blogspot.com/2014/08/more-on-correspondence.html">"More on Correspondence."</a><br><br>
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?<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<table style="border:1px solid black;border-collapse:collapse">
<tr>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><b><center>Possibilities</center></b></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><b><center>Deuteronomy 24:2</center></b></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><b><center>Matthew 19:9</center></b></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><b><center>Contradiction or Correspondence</center></b></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><b><center>Some adherents we know about</center></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>1.</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Woman <b>may marry</b> again</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Woman <b>may not marry</b> again</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Contradicts</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Ronny Wade,</center>
<center>George Battey</center></td>
</tr>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>2.</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Woman <b>may not marry</b> again</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Woman <b>may marry</b> again</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Contradicts</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>None we know about personally</center></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>3.</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Woman <b>may not marry</b> again</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Woman <b>may not marry</b> again</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Corresponds</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Clark Carlo,</center>
<center>Randy Deems,</center>
<center>Dwight Hendrickson</center></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>4.</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Woman <b>may marry</b> again</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Woman <b>may marry</b> again</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Corresponds<br>(implicitly)</center></td>
<td style="border:1px solid black"><center>Malcolm Kniffen,</center>
<center>Ervin Waters</center></td>
</tr>
</table><br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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.<br><br>dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-2225518537276323592014-12-02T11:45:00.000-06:002014-12-02T11:46:57.847-06:00More Correspondence Scenarios<p>
In some previous posts, we have written about the correspondence between Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9. In one post, we emphasized the chronological and the content correspondence between these passages. There is definitely a historical correspondence between these passages. If we miss the historical correspondence between these passages, then we are definitely on the wrong side of Jewish history. We are ignoring, and even suppressing, history that has been published. The Jewish history on this issue was obviously a problem for Jesus. But sometimes the important history and structure of these passages is ignored in favor of some of the meager “word studies” or contortions, as we might call them, which are sometimes concocted to obscure the historical connections and the historical correspondence between these passages. It is possible to focus on the minutia of “word studies” and miss the bigger historical picture.
</p>
<p>
A very important aspect of correspondence is to recognize when Jesus was dealing with the past or with the future. The fact is, Jesus dealt with some issues which concerned the past (such as Deuteronomy 24:1-4). But he also dealt with some issues which concerned the future or the kingdom. In such situations, the way things would be in the future did not put Jesus in conflict with the way things were in the past. And it is very clear that Jesus addressed both the future, the past and the present. Furthermore, Jesus did not use his teaching to destroy any historical teaching. Jesus did not use destructive teaching. This recognition is key to understanding the natural harmony that existed between the future and the past in Jesus' teaching. It is also key in recognizing that Jesus did not sin against or set aside the Law and become “least in the kingdom of heaven” himself. (Matthew 5:17-19)
</p>
<p>
For example, one minister of the Gospel wrote (we are paraphrasing him from memory) that a beloved brother in Christ believed that what Jesus said in Matthew 18 applied to Christians and Matthew 19:9, on the other hand, applied to Jews. He found it incredible that his beloved brother could possibly think that one passage applied to Christians and other passage did not. He obviously believed it was inconsistent. However, we believe, the minister of the Gospel had constructed a “false dichotomy” in his mind which obstructed his understanding of his brother's more flexible and reasonable position. His brother was not engaged in “black and white” thinking. His brother recognized the difference between historical problems and futuristic teachings. But the minister of the Gospel was engaged in exclusive either/or thinking.
</p>
<p>
Some of us do not believe that the beloved brother's more flexible position (one set of passages applied to Christians and the other set of passages did not apply) is contradictory at all. In fact, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount applied generally to both the Jews then and to Christians now. We are in trouble when we try to remove the universal applicability of Jesus' teachings. We Christians can glean a lot of truth from the Sermon on the Mount. We should not cast out the Sermon on the Mount just because we believe that some of it does not apply to Christians. But we sincerely believe that many Christians are thinking exactly what Jesus told the Jews not to think in Matthew 5:17 when he said “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets.” We should recognize that the Sermon on the Mount did not apply to Christians in some of its Jewish details and constructs. However, Paul emphasized that there is a universal applicability to the scriptures. Paul wrote to Timothy, “and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15) From his youth, Timothy had known what we call the Old Testament scriptures. We want to emphasize that they were the “Holy Scriptures.” These scriptures were “Holy” and deserved all the respect which Jesus obviously gave them. But some claim that Jesus used his authority to deny some of the scriptures. However, it was just the opposite. Jesus used his authority to emphatically confirm all the scriptures. Jesus certainly was not on some kind of a smear campaign against the scriptures. All the scriptures are (and were) “Holy.” That is why Jesus indicated a tremendous amount of respect for the scriptures when he used expressions such as “it is written.”
</p>
<p>
Well some might object and say that we are trying to have it both ways. We are trying to have Jesus teach the Law and the Gospel. Exactly. Some may say “Well you can't have it both ways.” Wrong. The Gospel which Jesus taught and the Law were supremely and divinely compatible! Jesus knew what he was doing. We should stop seeing contradictions whenever we have to deal with something which may at first seem to be ambiguous or incongruous. (Notice in a previous post that we emphasized that Jesus preached a Gospel which we cannot possibly preach in every respect. For example, we cannot possibly preach “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” If we try to teach that, we are flagrantly wrong.) Therefore, we think it is important to recognize the context of what Jesus was saying.
</p>
<p>
For example, in Matthew 18, Jesus was obviously engaged in some futuristic teaching about the kingdom. On doctrine, for example, Jesus told his disciples “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18) There was a lot of futuristic intent in these words. These are the very same words Jesus used in Matthew 16:19 when he told Peter “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” This also was futuristic. We recognize that Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. We can actually specify the day and the hour. Then Peter began to bind what had never been bound before. On assembly, Jesus said in Matthew 18:19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Jesus said something similar in John 16:22-24 with regard to his impending death. “Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.” Jesus became their mediator (and our mediator) after his death on the cross. Some have said that Matthew 18:19 does not refer to church assembly. Perhaps it does. Perhaps it doesn't. It could refer to prayer and discipline. But it could also refer to church assembly. The Jews have a concept which is really not scriptural. (They twist the scriptures to make their idea fit.) They believe that it requires ten men to make a Minyan or the smallest group that is necessary to conduct worship. But Jesus said that two or three can assemble in his name and have his presence. We think that this is much better than a Minyan. In any case, assembling in the name of Jesus, or by his authority, had never been done before. It was not historical. It was new and futuristic. But would someone please give us a good explanation why this futuristic teaching would destroy the Law of Moses?
</p>
<p>
On the other hand, in Matthew 19:9 and in Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus was dealing with a historical problem among the Jews. This was not (or should not have been) a futuristic problem. Unfortunately, we have borrowed this historical problem. We are still debating it (just like the Jews). It is very unfortunate. We guess that “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” This debate should be recognized as a historical problem. For those who do not believe that Jesus was dealing with a historical problem, just look at the language. “It has been said.” (Matthew 5:31) This was something that had been emphasized in the past in their synagogues. Therefore, Jesus was plainly dealing with history. It was an “oral history.” We may deny it however much we want; but this is just a historical fact. If we deny it, then history is against us. We have simply missed the history. But some suppose that Jesus was giving futuristic answers to historical problems. Therein lies the mistake. Even the disciples of Jesus recognized that Jesus was giving good answers to historical questions. Furthermore, they recognized that these answers applied to them in their time before the Christian era. “The disciples said to him, 'If this is the case between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.'” (Matthew 19:10) What is futuristic about their exclamation? Please review a previous post about the question from the Pharisees that Jesus was answering in Matthew 19:9. It consisted of a “lawful” correspondence factor, a “male” correspondence factor (because a Jewish woman could not initiate a divorce against her Jewish husband) and it consisted of an “every cause” correspondence factor. There was a debate among the schools of thought about the “every cause.” These correspondence factors far outweigh any of the minutia contained in some of the word interpretations so often used to muddy the waters. These correspondence factors constrained Jesus' answers. While some Christians suppose that Jesus answered the Pharisees outside of the constraints imposed on him by their question, the Jews expected Jesus to answer them within their constraints which they imposed upon him. But the overriding constraint imposed on Jesus was the fact that he could not violate the Law without destroying his work of redemption. Can anyone convince us that this does not matter? In previous posts we have mentioned some of the far reaching implications of Jesus destroying the Law of Moses. We have called them the “terrible implications.”
</p>
<p>
Obviously, there was much confusion among the Jews about the right to divorce and remarry. They were using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as a proof text for the right of the Jewish man to divorce his wife. Actually, they were in error when they tried to use this “case law” as a proof text for divorce. It was really not designed as a proof text for divorce. The Pharisees had changed this passage from an allowance for a man to divorce his wife, for a specific cause, into an actual command for a man to divorce his wife for “every cause.” That is, if your wife was guilty of something unchaste, or even if you just “hated her”, you were commanded to divorce your wife.
</p>
<p>
Jesus said they were merely “permitted” by Moses to divorce their wives. We want to notice an important point right here. Jesus said the interpretation of the Pharisees did not correspond with what Moses had actually said. Nevertheless, some would have Jesus correcting the Pharisees and then have Jesus violating Moses by doing the very same thing he accused them of doing (not having an answer that corresponded with Moses). Who would correct Jesus? Why do some, by their interpretations, have Jesus making irrelevant criticisms about correspondence? Was it wrong to disagree with Moses or not? Some would certainly have Jesus to be living by a hypocritical and a double standard. The Pharisees were wrong. But what Jesus said did not correspond either? Was Jesus also wrong? According to some, Jesus had the right to be wrong because he was an authority answering historical questions with futuristic kingdom law. He superseded Moses. This idea certainly violates Galatians 4:4 where we are told that Jesus was born “under” the Law. This was a constraint that guided Jesus all of his life. Some would say Jesus was not subject to any such constraint. If so, their feeble assertion is in direct violation of the scriptures. It is simply outrageous to accuse Jesus of living by a double standard. If such were the case, Jesus could not sin because he would be making up the rules as he went. But he was “in all points tempted as we are yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15) Without a level playing field, it would have been a case of sin for them; but not for him. No. Jesus gave the proper explanation of what Moses actually said because Jesus considered a lack of correspondence important enough to point it out to the Pharisees. But the Pharisees could not point out his lack of correspondence to the Law of Moses because there was none.
</p>
<p>
We want to elaborate on this important point just a little. The Pharisees kept putting Jesus under tremendous pressure. It was the kind of pressure where a normal man would have failed. They were trying to get him to deny the teachings of Moses and subject himself to the retribution of Rome. This was the real reason they brought Jesus the woman who was taken in adultery. Rome had removed the right of the Jews to carry out the death penalty. Therefore, the Pharisees thought they could cause Jesus to lose favor with Rome, by agreeing to kill this adulterous woman, or they thought he would lose favor with the people, by violating the law of Moses. Either way, they thought Jesus would lose in the Temple. Their desire to cause Jesus to lose was much greater than any sense of Godly propriety. But Jesus was a merciful man, a lawful man, and he knew their intentions. He never did oppose the Law of Moses even under extreme pressure.
</p>
<p>
In John 8:1-11 Jesus was in the temple in the midst of a large crowd. The Pharisees saw this as an opportunity to discredit him in front of a lot of people. Therefore, they brought to him this woman caught in the act of adultery. In their minds, it was an open and shut case. The Law of Moses was plain. She should be stoned. Was not the death penalty the only solution for someone caught in the act of adultery? It was in their minds. (It still is in the minds of some.) However, Jesus upheld the Law because he said: “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” (John 8:7) The accusers slipped away one by one because Jesus had convicted them. Jesus also understood that there must be accusers to have a legal situation. But there were no accusers because Jesus had dismissed them. Therefore, Jesus asked the woman: “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you? 'No, Lord,' she said. And Jesus said, 'Neither do I. Go and sin no more.'” (John 8:10-11) Notice he did not excuse her sin. Neither did he violate the Law. But he showed mercy. This was a win for Jesus, for the adulteress, for mercy and the Law. But the Pharisees lost because they had left all the decency for which Jesus stood. In all of this, Jesus kept the Law. We ask a very important question. Why did Jesus uphold the Law in the Temple under such great pressure? Well Jesus lived under the Law. He was a man who could be lawful and merciful at the same time. What an amazing man! His very life corresponded with the Law of Moses. Therefore, why would Jesus discard correspondence with the Law of Moses in Matthew 19:9 when he did not do so in the case of this adulterous woman? He kept the Law at all costs and in every condition.
</p>
dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-16152008610664478162014-08-16T15:30:00.000-05:002014-08-16T15:36:10.990-05:00More on Correspondence<p>In a previous post, we have written on the chronological and content correspondence between Matthew 19:9 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4. We believe these passages correspond. However, some others believe they do not.</p>
<p>We believe there are several important flawed correspondence assumptions presented about the teachings of Jesus. First, is that Jesus taught against the Law of Moses in Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:31-32. But we have tried to present that there was actually a lack of correspondence between Jesus and the Pharisees (not Jesus and the Law). Second, we tried to make a distinction between what was “written” and what was “heard” in the synagogues. Jesus was always very supportive of what was “written”, but he was not always very supportive of everything that was “heard” in the synagogues. For example, he was not supportive of misplaced emphasis. Also some have seemingly assumed that Jesus completely addressed everything that was ever said about marriage and divorce in the Old Testament. Therefore, “red herrings”, such as rules about women taken in military conquest, slaves used as wives and the necessity for a husband to support his wife, are cited as examples of a lack of correspondence between the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Jesus addressed the controversy over Deuteronomy 24:1-4 because that was the area where the Jews were having a problem.</p>
<p>But some, in reference to Matthew 5, have made the statement that “hearing” was the only way Jews could get any information because they were illiterate. Therefore, when Jesus said “you have heard”, in Matthew 5, he was disputing against the Law of Moses. But it is impossible in our day to make absolute assertions about the literacy level in the first century. Obviously some could read and write. At least there was partial literacy. For example, Jesus could read and write. He read from the scriptures in the synagogue. He also wrote on the ground when they brought him the woman taken in adultery. (This message on the ground was very likely much more than a doodle because Jesus knew letters.) Also his disciples and relatives (such as his brother James) wrote epistles. The assumption that they always had to use scribes is just conjecture. Furthermore, Jesus used expressions like “it is written”, “have ye never read” and “you have heard” to indicate those teachings of which he approved and those teachings of which he disapproved. These were not just statements about the level of literacy. These were statements about the sources of truth and error. The written word was not a source of error. It was a source of truth. The very fact that Jesus used expressions such as “it is written” and “you have heard” indicates that he knew the important difference between the two sources. The oral sources and the written sources were not the same. This is just a historical fact.</p>
<p>It was posted and written in the temple that gentiles would die if they went beyond a certain point in the temple. It was written by those who knew that some could read. Why did Pilate write “king of the Jews” in three different languages and post it upon the cross? Because some people could read. Even some educators, such as Rabbi Shimon Ben Shetach, had established schools and programs to increase the level of literacy among the populace. Furthermore, it was emphasized in the Old Testament that parents had the obligation to teach their children. (Deuteronomy 6:7) No doubt they even memorized the scriptures. Therefore, it is very difficult to make legitimate statements about the level of first century literacy.</p>
<p>Let us note that the study of the scriptures has always resulted in a very high level of literacy among religious people. For example, Paul said about Timothy “from a child you have known the holy scriptures.” (2 Timothy 3:15) He also said to Timothy: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) The ability to “study” and to know the scriptures required literacy. It is stated of the Bereans: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11) This required literacy among the Bereans and the Thessalonians. Note that the Thessalonians were not criticized for being illiterate. They were criticized for a lack of diligence.</p>
<p>It is said of Jesus, “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” (Luke 4:17-21) Jesus stood up to “read.” He “found the place where it was written.” This requires literacy. It was not a miracle that Jesus could read. It was merely his ordinary custom. Also it is very unlikely that he was alone in his ability to read. There were others because people were not flabbergasted that he could read. They were amazed, and greatly offended, because he said: “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” He angered them because he applied this passage to himself. The people in Nazareth obviously considered Jesus to be just an ordinary person with ordinary relatives and ordinary abilities. Therefore, reading was no doubt considered by them to be just an ordinary attribute. But his claim about what he read was certainly extraordinary. It greatly angered them.</p>
<p>No doubt the Pharisees, the scribes and the doctors of the law took pride in their education. They considered themselves to be the “learned” and others to be the “unlearned.” This was a big part of their culture and their problem. They supposed they were the ones who had a right to interpret the scriptures for everyone else. They could read. They could make copies. The scriptures were their personal domain. But, while they exalted themselves in the scriptures, Jesus made trouble for them because he violated their ideas of how things should be. Jesus was supposed to be an ignorant person from Nazareth. They were supposed to be the defenders of the truth. So they tested Jesus. Therefore, perhaps with some ridicule in his voice, Jesus asked them on more than one occasion: “Have you never read in the scriptures”? These people, with their vaunted ability to read and write, should have read some of these things in the scriptures. Would Jesus ask them this if he was illiterate?</p>
<p>Jesus expected people to have a legitimate knowledge of the scriptures. In Luke 10:25-28 the scriptures say: “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” This man gave a scriptural answer and Jesus acknowledged that fact. The lawyer quoted the Shema (“Hear, O Israel”) in Deuteronomy 6:5. However, this man was tempting Jesus because he wondered if Jesus would give him a scriptural answer. Jesus knew he was being tempted, so he asked: “What is written in the law? How readest thou?” Jesus acknowledged that if he did this (what he could read in the Law), he would live. The Old Testament commandments were predicated upon the love of God and the love of neighbor. In fact, Jesus said: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:40)</p>
<p>The Sadducees were ignorant about the scriptures concerning the resurrection. They did not believe in a resurrection. In Matthew 22:23-33 it says: “The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.” Jesus' doctrine, about which they were astonished, was based upon a certain scripture which they had not properly considered. That is why Jesus said: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” Had they known the scriptures, as they should have known them, they would have had reason to believe in the resurrection.</p>
<p>The parable or the allegory of the rich man and Lazarus indicates the Jesus and God expected Jews to have a knowledge and a respect for Moses and the Prophets. No doubt Jesus expected them to have the same respect which he always exhibited.</p>
<p>At one point in this parable, the rich man made a special request. “And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” (Luke 16:24-31) A proper knowledge and respect for God's word was very necessary. It was just as necessary as the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It is also a reminder that even if we end up in hell, we will not want our brothers to be there. This is a very sobering thought.</p>
dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-23702958346384878422013-10-19T15:26:00.001-05:002014-12-28T14:28:33.837-06:00<BODY>
<B><U><FONT SIZE=5><SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P ALIGN="CENTER">Chronological and Content Correspondence</P>
</B></U></FONT><P>In this post we review some of the answers that Ronny F. Wade wrote in his <I>Querist Column</I> of the October, 2013 issue of the <I>OPA</I>. 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.”</P>
<P>The writer answers this question in his query column: <B>“In view of Luke 16:16, where does Matthew 19:9 belong?”</B> 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<I> after</I> 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 <B>“In view of Luke 16:16-17, where does Matthew 19:9 belong?” </P>
<P>The writer writes: </B> <B>“</B>The law and the prophets were <I>until</I> John: <I>since that time</I> the kingdom of God is preached, and every man <I>presseth into it</I>.” (We added italics to emphasize the chronology.) The writer then explains: “The basic idea of this verse merely indicates that <I>with</I> the last book of the Old Testament scriptures, (Malachi), no further revelation came from God <I>until</I> John broke the silence by preaching in the wilderness. <I>From that point </I>the kingdom of heaven was preached. Obviously Matthew 19:9 came <I>after </I>John began his preaching, hence in order to determine <I>where </I> the verse applies, one must first of all determine if the verse <I>agrees with or differs</I> 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 “<I>after </I>John the Baptist began his preaching” (timing). And then he concludes: “...hence ..., one must first of all determine if the verse <I>agrees with or differs</I> from what the Law of Moses taught” (content correspondence).</P>
<B><P>But we respond</B>: 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: <B>“</B>And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.<B> </B>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 <I>under the Law</I> and died<I> before</I> 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<I> end of the effectiveness</I> or the preaching of the Law of Moses; but it is rather a statement about the <I>beginning</I> of the preaching of the kingdom of God by John the Baptist and Jesus. The<I> end</I> of the Law of Moses and the <I>beginning </I>of the preaching of the kingdom of God do not <B>coincide</B>. Furthermore, the writer, in his chronological and content correspondence implications, implies that the preaching of the kingdom of God (Luke 16:16) <B>excluded</B> 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 <B>was not excluded</B> 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.</P>
<B><P>The writer writes: </B>“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)”</P>
<B><P>But we respond: </B>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 <I>close proximity</I> 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, <I>before and after</I> Pentecost or just <I>after </I>Pentecost)?</P>
<P>Obviously the writer broadens the chronological scope of Matthew 19:9 to apply <I>after</I> 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.</P>
<B><P>The writer later writes: </B>“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.” </P>
<B><P>But we respond: </B>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 “<B>miss the point and actually enunciate an unscriptural hermeneutic</B>?” 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 <B>case of the man be so with his wife</B>, 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.”</P>
<B><P>The writer writes: </B> “The context of this verse is couched in the question asked of Jesus by the Pharisees.” By “this verse”, he means Matthew 19:9.</P>
<B><P>But we respond: </B>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.</P>
<B><P>The writer writes: </B>“...couched in the question...'is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?'”</P>
<P> <B>But we respond: </B>There are three very important content correspondence indicators or factors in their question. The first content indicator in the question is “is it <B>lawful</B>?” The second important content correspondence indicator in the question is “<B>for a man</B> 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 <B>any reason</B>?” </P>
<P>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 <I>man putting away his wife</I>. </P>
<P>However, the writer believes that divorce can be initiated by any party (man, woman or Gentile Christian). <I> </I>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 <I>confound the laws</I> of our country, and <I>divorced herself from her husband while he was alive</I>, and was married to </SPAN><U><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="">Herod</U></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="EN-US">, her husband's <I>brother by the father's side</I>, he was </SPAN><U><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="">tetrarch</U></SPAN><SPAN LANG="EN-US"> </FONT>of </SPAN><U><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="">Galilee</U></SPAN><SPAN LANG="EN-US">....</FONT>” [</SPAN><U><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="">Josephus</U></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="EN-US">'s </SPAN><U><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="">Jewish Antiquities</U></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="EN-US"> (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 <I>one ground </I>for a man to divorce his wife. That ground was “<I>unchastity</I>.” [Neusner's <I>The Mishnah A New Translation </I>(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.</P>
<B><P>The writer writes: </B>“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.'” </P>
<B><P>But we respond: </B>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? </P>
<P> 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: <B>“Have ye not read</B>, 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 <I>begin</I> his answers with an appeal to the scriptures and then <I>end</I> 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. </P>
<P> <B>The writer writes: </B>“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 <I>one of the partners</I> '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.”</P>
<B><P>But we respond: </B>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 <B>Moses</B> command...?” Are we to believe that Jesus did not answer them according to their question? In fact, preachers sometimes truncate Jesus' answer with “<I>Moses, because of the hardness of your heart permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.</I>” <B>Period.</B> Jesus merely acknowledged the fact. He had nothing more to say to them about the Law. Then Jesus abruptly proceeds to give <B>them</B> his own ground. <B>But Jesus does not give it to <I>them</I>. </B>Please consider that point very seriously. <B>There is a total disconnect here. </B>(Talk about <B>not talking</B> 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 <I>not a part of the Law of Moses</I>, 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 <B>include</B> Matthew 19:9 in Kingdom teaching and <B>exclude</B> it from the Law of Moses.</P>
<P>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 <B>grounds</B> 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. </P>
<P>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, <I>because he hath found some uncleanness in her</I>: 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.” </P>
<P>But the Pharisees said: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.” <B>Period</B>. 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...?” <B>Period. </B>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.</P>
<P>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. </P>
<P> </P></SPAN></BODY>dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-69146588565413190522013-05-09T18:41:00.002-05:002015-03-09T03:02:11.441-05:00<html>
<center> <h1>The Outreach Constraints</h1></center>
<div> <br /> </div>
<P>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.</P>
<P>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.</P>
<P>For example, “...when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,<B> </B>And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.<B> </B>And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.<B> </B>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.</P>
<P>On another occasion it says:<B> “</B>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.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.<B> </B>And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.<B> </B>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) </P>
<P>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. </P>
<P>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. </P>
<P>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. <B>“</B>Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.<B> </B>Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.” </P>
<P>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:<B> </B>But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.<B> </B>And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.<B> </B>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.</P>
<P>The “Limited Commission” is often contrasted with the “Great Commission.” The great commission says: <B>“</B>And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.<B> </B>Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:<B> </B>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:</P>
<TABLE ALIGN=CENTER BORDER CELLSPACING=2 CELLPADDING=12 DIR="LTR" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<TR><TD WIDTH="51%" VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=25>
<B><SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P>Limited Commission</B></SPAN></TD>
<TD WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=25>
<B><SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P>Great Commission</B></SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD WIDTH="51%" VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=25>
<SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P>1) Given before the cross.</SPAN></TD>
<TD WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=25>
<SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P>1) Given after the cross.</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD WIDTH="51%" VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=44>
<SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P>2) Jesus had limited power on earth.</SPAN></TD>
<TD WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=44>
<SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P>2) Jesus had all power in heaven and earth.</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD WIDTH="51%" VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=44>
<SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P>3) Disciples sent to Israel. (Local Outreach)</SPAN></TD>
<TD WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=44>
<SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P>3) Disciples sent to the world. (World Outreach)</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD WIDTH="51%" VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=44>
<SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P>4) Disciples taught the “imminence” of the kingdom. (Local Message)</SPAN></TD>
<TD WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=44>
<SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P>4) Disciples taught the kingdom existed; and the Lord added the baptized believers to his church. (Universal Message)</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD WIDTH="51%" VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=44>
<SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P>5) It was a temporary commission. </SPAN></TD>
<TD WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=44>
<SPAN LANG="EN-US"><P>5) It was a permanent commission or “until the end of the world.”</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<SPAN LANG="EN-US">
<P> </P>
<P>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: <B>“...</B>they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.”</P>
<P>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 <I>know</I> <I>the law</I>,) how that the law hath dominion over a man <I>as long as he liveth</I>?<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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 <I>free from that law</I>; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.<B> </B>Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become <I>dead to the law</I> <I>by</I> the <I>body of Christ (death on the cross—my insertion)</I>; 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 <I>of her husband</I>.” 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.</P>
<P>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<B> and </B>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. </P>
<P>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.</P>
<P>Acts 21 proves that Paul practiced Judaism. <B>“</B>And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.<B> </B>And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.<B> </B>And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.<B> </B>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:<B> </B>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.<B> </B>What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.<B> </B>Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.</P>
<P>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.<B> </B>For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.</P>
<P>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.) </P>
<P>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 </SPAN><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechab"><FONT COLOR="#0b0080"><SPAN LANG="EN-US">Rechab</FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="EN-US">, 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. [</SPAN><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just"><U><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="">Wikipedia - James the Just</U></FONT></SPAN></A>]</html>dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-46406620217532955952013-03-26T20:16:00.000-05:002013-03-26T20:28:20.263-05:00
<center><h1>The Identity Disclaimer</h1></center>
<div> <br /> </div>
<p>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.</P>
<P>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. </P>
<P>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.</P>
<P>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. </P>
<P>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) </P>
<P>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 ….<B> </B>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;<B> </B>And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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:<B> </B>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)</P>
<P>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 <B>Son of man</B> 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.”</P>
<P>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 <B>child is born</B>, unto us a <B>son is given</B>: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, <B>The mighty God</B>, 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)</P>
<P>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. <B>“</B>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.) </P>
<P>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)</P>
<P>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)</P>
<P>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.</P>
<P>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:<B> </B>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.</P>
<P>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. <B>“</B>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?<B> </B>And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.<B> </B>He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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)</P>
<P>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 <FONT COLOR="#282828">between different religious groups and denominations,</FONT> 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.</P>
<P>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 <B>and</B> 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) </P>
<P>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.</P>
<P>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.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.</P>
<P>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.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.” (John 19:19-22) And thus it shall ever be written.</P>
<P>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:<B> </B>Which none of the princes of this world knew: <B>for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory</B>.” (1 Corinthians 2:7-8) Again we read in Acts 4: <B> “</B>And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them,<B> </B>Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead<FONT FACE="Verdana">. …. </FONT>And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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.<B> </B>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:<B> </B>Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?<B> </B>The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.<B> </B>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,<B> </B>For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” (Acts 4:1-28) </P>
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-38113007-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-33357832677178880202013-01-22T08:40:00.000-06:002013-02-02T06:32:51.635-06:00<center><h1>The Righteousness of the Pharisees</h1></center>
<div>
<br /></div>
<p>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.</p><p>
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.</p>
<p>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:</p><ul>
<li><b>The Messiah would bring world peace.</b> 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.</li><li>
<b>They did not trust the “written word” to do its job.</b> 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)</li><li>
<b>They were a privileged class.</b> 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.</li><li>
<b>The Pharisees claimed special authority for their teachings and their customs.</b> 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).</li><li>
<b>They did not respect, love or fraternize with those whom they considered to be common, ignorant or sinners.</b> 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.</li><li>
<b>They taught false doctrine.</b> 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.</li><li>
<b>They did not seek righteousness.</b> 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).</li><li>
<b>They did not seek repentance.</b> 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)</li><li>
<b>They swore falsely.</b> 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: <A HREF="http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/1219294/jewish/Talmud-Study-Lesson-10.htm">Talmud Study - Lesson 10</A>. 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)</li></ul>
<p>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: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1gkIpI6LF_0&h=cAQFXGl0g">Modern Day Pharisee</a>.</p>
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-38113007-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-66016527256799153192012-11-08T22:18:00.002-06:002013-02-02T06:33:28.485-06:00<br />
<h1 style="text-align: center;">
Hope for the Downtrodden</h1>
<div>
<br /></div>
Much of what Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount was directed towards individuals who felt persecuted and powerless. That is, Jesus delivered a message of hope for many people who had none. This is a very encouraging message because Jesus realized that his Father chooses people who are disadvantaged by worldly standards. By disadvantaged, we mean people who do not exactly fit the ideas of worldly power and success. This is especially true in Western civilizations. The definition of success by Western standards is often spiritually unhealthy. We may feel like a failure when we have not succeeded by some of these standards. But many of these standards are material, competitive, greedy, selfish and violent. So, if we are feeling downtrodden or helpless, perhaps we need to change our perspective. We should read the Sermon on the Mount. We may get a different idea about what God considers to be important.<br />
<br />
The fact is, even Jesus was downtrodden. This is why Jesus was so loved. By worldly standards, he was never on “top.” He could have been. But he made a determined effort not to be. He did not always do what he had the power to do. He said “no” to the many temptations offered by Satan. We can learn a lot by just looking at what he refused.<br />
<br />
During the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, Satan offered Jesus what might be considered the world. But Jesus declined every single offer. Whereas, the philosophy of this world is to take advantage of every offer that comes along, Jesus saw all these temptations as requests for submission from the Devil. But many people will follow after Satan instead of answering Satan like Jesus did with “it is written.” Satan offered Jesus tremendous opportunities because Satan recognized that Jesus was an extremely powerful adversary. Look at the kinds of offers Satan made! For a little worship, Satan promised him “all the kingdoms of the world.” This was no small offer. Many powerful people today would love to have world domination. However, Jesus declined. Yet we are told that Jesus wants to come back and to violently dominate the world. But he has already refused that course, why would he follow it now? We know Judgement Day is coming. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) But this is not the time when Jesus will be establishing his kingdom. It will be “the end” of his rule instead of “the beginning.” As 1 Corinthians 15:24 proclaims: “Then cometh the end” (speaking about the end of his rule).<br />
<br />
We notice that in the temptation of Jesus, Satan distorted the scriptures. As always, he used subterfuge. We have witnessed such distortions many times. For example, we just got back from West Virginia where some churches handle copperheads, rattlesnakes and perhaps other deadly serpents in their worship services. They are tempting fate and playing games with the Devil; but they see snake handling as a legitimate form of worship. Some of them actually die. Even a few deaths are ample evidence of their folly, but they quote from such passages as Mark 16:17-18 to justify their practice. But how did Jesus see such scriptural perversions? Well, in his temptation, Jesus said to Satan: “It is written again, You shall not tempt the Lord your God.” Although Satan quoted scripture, Jesus cited a scripture that was much more appropriate. No doubt it was possible for Jesus to cast himself down from the pinnacle of the temple (or the south end of the high retaining wall surrounding the temple mount) without harm. But Jesus appealed to a much higher objective. Therefore, we learn by his temptation that the motives behind our actions are very important. At other times, Jesus willingly performed beneficial miracles to build faith and assist the afflicted. But temptations from Satan were very different. Jesus realized that Satan was endeavoring to destroy him. He recognized the source and the objective of Satan's requests. Since Satan intends nothing good for any of us, we would all do well to recognize the source and the objective of all his suggestions.<br />
<br />
After Jesus successfully opposed all these supposed “opportunities” (Matthew 4), he gave what is called his spectacular “Sermon on the Mount.” In the first part, he gave hope to those who felt hopeless. Notice, these people that he describes as “blessed” were not evil people. Evil people may feel persecuted and hopeless (rightly so). In the case of evil people, repentance is a good thing. But these people were without hope because they were persecuted. Therefore, Jesus offered them hope. He offers all of us the same hope today. He can transform all of our obstacles into great blessings. We can all be blessed by these attitudes.<br />
<br />
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3) The anticipation of a “coming kingdom” was tremendous. It was so great that Matthew 11:12 proclaims: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” They were wrongly trying to take the kingdom (hence the phrase “the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence”). John the Baptist had built up so much anticipation in people for an imminent kingdom that the violent were ready to take it by any means. Many believed that subtle, haughty, evil, violent and combative people were necessary to bring it about. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism">Machiavellianism</a> anyone? Have we noticed that after thousands of years of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism">Machiavellianism</a>, man is no closer to world peace than he has ever been?) Many were Zealots. When Jesus fed the multitudes with five barley loaves and two small fishes, they were ready to use force to make him a king. (John 6:15) Jesus refused. He never considered the use of violence to obtain any of his objectives.(Some cite his throwing out of the money changers from the temple. But even here he used his moral and spiritual authority. He overturned the tables of the money changers. He did not have to touch anyone. Others cite his anger at this fig tree because he cursed it and it dried up. Perhaps they may have never considered that this fig tree symbolized the future of a people that had failed to accept him and to bear fruit?) On one occasion, Jesus invited his disciples to bring along a couple of swords (merely as tokens of violence) to show them the place of violence in his kingdom. Notice what Jesus said to Peter when they came for him in the garden. “And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:51-53) With twelve legions of angels at his disposal, Jesus could have easily conquered the entire world with deadly force. But, as we have already seen in his temptation, that was never his objective. (Acts 7:49, Isaiah 66:1 )<br />
<br />
How were the poor in spirit to obtain a heavenly kingdom? To the violent, the poor in spirit are simply useless and powerless. They are not a factor. But Jesus told them they were powerful. Jesus assured the poor in spirit that they were the ones (not the haughty and the violent) who would ultimately possess the heavenly kingdom. Even if they felt powerless, with the help of God, it would be theirs. This was very “good news.” Therefore, there was no need for them to be like Herod, the Zealots or any of the others who thought violence was the answer.<br />
<br />
The fact is, attitudes are much more permanent and powerful than military might. “He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.” (Proverbs 16:32) Self control is much more powerful than any robotic killing machine that man has ever devised. Furthermore, humility of spirit (like Jesus had) is beneficial to man's ultimate spiritual and eternal welfare. As Zechariah was instructed to say to Zerubbabel (the grandson of the once cursed Jehoiachin by which the Jews question the genealogy of Jesus because his children had been cursed): “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord Almighty.” (Zechariah 4:6) This was a humble and a spiritual work. God does not need to use physical force to bring about a spiritual or heavenly kingdom. Instead God uses spiritual force. Physical force and anger are counter productive to spiritual objectives. (James 1:20)<br />
<br />
We wish that many in the “religious right” would notice this “poor in spirit” condition. Trying to establish a heavenly kingdom on earth by physical violence is counter to this necessary attitude. There are several things wrong with military objectives designed to the establish a heavenly kingdom on earth. (Note: In this article we are not lamenting or denying the legitimate existence of the nation of Israel. We are personally happy that Israel exists. It may be the will of God. We are just denying the need to use force or to have a spiritual reign on the temple mount in Jerusalem which some have equated with the “heavenly kingdom” or the “new Jerusalem.”) First, Jesus has already established a “spiritual” or heavenly kingdom. (Acts 2ff.) Therefore, he does not need to come back and establish another earthly or “physical” kingdom on the temple mount (which is part of his footstool). Such an effort would blaspheme the spiritual effort he made in the first place. It mocks his death on the cross. Second, Jesus did not use force, or have his disciples to use force, in establishing his spiritual kingdom. In our estimation, a military endeavor to establish a new temple in Jerusalem would nullify the “poor in spirit” cause and effect relationship. The use of force by the servants of God is certainly not a legitimate way to exhibit a humble attitude; and, therefore, obtain a heavenly kingdom.<br />
<br />
We are well aware of some claims that the new kingdom has not yet come because there is no evidence for it. They say that the establishment of a heavenly kingdom (or peace on earth) has been a total failure. For example, they make a literal interpretation of Isaiah 11:6 (“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”) Some rabbis will usually say: “When I can look out my window and see a literal transformation of nature, then I will know the kingdom of heaven is really here. I will be able to see it.” But we interpret Isaiah 11:6 as a spiritual regeneration. For example, those who have been perhaps as ferocious as a lion (wicked) will be able to change their nature (repent) so that they can lie down with the lamb (good people). This passage is not a literal or a physical reality that can be observed by looking out the window. It is a spiritual regeneration. It is an individual regeneration. Only a small “remnant” of people will ever be successfully regenerated. (Matthew 22:14)<br />
<br />
Another aspect of being “poor in spirit” is the exhibition of a receptive attitude. Even John the Baptist, who noticed the moral characteristics of the Pharisees, did not consider them to be very good candidates for the coming kingdom. As spiritual leaders, they were really not as Godly as they thought they were. (Luke 18:11) Perhaps that is why John exclaimed when he saw them coming to his baptism: “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. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” (Matthew 3:7-10) Comparing people to a subtle and a deadly brood of vipers is certainly not a very good recommendation. John did not express very much hope. Remember the question above. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism">Machiavellianism </a>anyone?<br />
<br />
Jesus did not express very much hope for the Pharisees either. Perhaps that is why he spent most of his effort and his time with the common people. In fact, after Jesus had rebuked the Pharisees for the “tradition of the elders”, he advised his disciples: “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” (Matthew 15:14) It was almost like Jesus was saying: “They are so hopeless. Don't spend too much time on them.” We are sure that Jesus had not completely written them off; because there were many good people among them. Let us not forget the apostle Paul. But Jesus seemed to be telling his disciples that they would be much more productive elsewhere. This is really a sad commentary.<br />
<br />
We remember the lamentation of Paul: “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 9:1-5) It is truly a shame that more of his people were not “poor in spirit.”<br />
<br />
We see many in Israel today, surrounded by all of their enemies, hoping for salvation from heaven. The whole world is wondering. Many (along with some in America) are vainly trusting in military superiority and the idea that the Jews are the “children of Abraham.” Even the US is engaged with them in their struggle to bring in the “kingdom of heaven.” They believe that war is the solution. Oh that they would all hear the words of Jesus to Zacchaeus. “This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:9-10) There is always hope for the downtrodden! Theirs could also be the kingdom of heaven.
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-38113007-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-27599774936724753392012-06-27T18:00:00.000-05:002015-03-04T17:35:40.625-06:00<h1 style="text-align: center;">
Tradition
of the Elders</h1>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
<p>In Matthew 15 and Mark 7 the scribes and the
Pharisees from Jerusalem asked Jesus a very significant
question. “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of
the elders?” (Matthew 15:2, Mark 7:5) This question reveals a
very central difference between Jesus and the Pharisees. Jesus did not always keep the “Oral Traditions” which evolved into the Mishnah, the Gemara and the
Talmud.</p>
</div>
<div class="western">
<p>The “tradition of the elders” differed
from the Law of Moses. For example, Mark leads into the question the
Pharisees asked Jesus by explaining: “For the Pharisees and all
the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a <i>special</i>
way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the
marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many
other things which they have <i>received and hold</i>, like the
washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.” (Mark
7:3-4) They “received” (orally) and maintained special purity laws that went far beyond the Law of Moses.</p>
</div>
<div class="western">
<p>The “tradition of the elders” was a body of knowledge the Pharisees invented. It gave rabbis unquestioned authority. They were concerned about building what they considered to be a “fence” around the Law. Very famous rabbis, such as Hillel and Shammai, emerged because of this fence. Building this fence required diligent study and hard work. But on the positive side, at least for Rabbinical Judaism, it was a very strong cohesive force. It contributed to a strong sense of family, community and
worship.</p>
<p>Many groups have emerged that use these extra-biblical sources (Talmud). For example, Hasidic Jews (ultra-orthodox) and Orthodox Jews emphasize them. Some groups even emphasize mystical sources such as the Kabbalah. (For example, they may study astrology where Aries has a personality associated with the characteristics of “fire.” Therefore, Aries would not have had the patience to write this blog.) Other Jews, such as the Karaite Jews, completely reject extra-biblical sources. But, as we have noted, many Jews give them great importance.</p>
</div>
<div class="western">
<p>Jesus went out of his way to break down or diminish some of the extra-biblical traditions. He did this in his famous Sermon on the Mount.(Matthew 5) He also
purposely violated Sabbath traditions. Even today there are many acts of
forbidden work. Many of them have nothing to do with ordinary daily tasks. For example, some Jews today will not even turn on a light switch because it is associated with construction. (A circuit is constructed when someone turns on a light switch.) They would rather walk up three flights of stairs than push an elevator button. Jesus did not do away with the Sabbath, during his earthly ministry, but he did contest unreasonable definitions of work. He performed compassionate acts on the Sabbath. It is not surprising that some of the Pharisees thought he was breaking the Law. In reality he was just breaking some of their traditions.</p>
</div>
<div class="western">
<p>The teachings of Jesus, in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, prove that Jesus disagreed with some of their purity traditions. Their very question reveals that even they knew his
disciples were just violating some of their purity regulations. “Why do Your disciples transgress the <i>tradition of the elders</i>? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” (Matthew 15:2) Jesus responded with this question: “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of <i>your</i>
tradition?” (Matthew 15:3) First, Jesus' answer to their question with his own reveals that he respected the commandments of God. Second, it reveals that it was some of “their” traditions (and not God's commandment) that he protested.</p>
</div>
<div class="western">
<p>Some Christians suppose that Jesus used his authority to justify his own breaking of the Law. For example, some have concluded that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught against the Law; and they suppose that his teachings became effective after the cross. Therefore, his teachings could not violate the Law because they applied later. This is wrong for two reasons. First, Jesus was opposing Jewish traditions (not the Law). Second, his opposition was not prospective. We understand that Jesus could teach prospectively (as when he instituted the the Lord's Supper). But the
Lord's Supper has nothing to do with Jewish traditions. Jesus could teach about current Jewish issues <i>and</i> future kingdom issues because he had the capacity to walk such a fine line without breaking the Law.</p>
</div>
<div class="western">
<p>It would be hypocritical of Jesus to condemn the Pharisees for violating the commandment of God and then do the same thing himself. Jesus never lived by such a double standard. Jesus said to the Pharisees: “...hypocrites, as it is written: …. in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For
laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do. … All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” (Mark 7:6-9) Jesus
accused them of “...making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have <i>handed down</i>....” (Mark 7:13) This tradition was “handed down” orally.
Rabbinical Jews say it started with Moses. This is a false claim. We cannot find where such a tradition was ever mentioned in the scriptures. But it originated at some point. And it was certainly enhanced by such renowned rabbis as Hillel who according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder">Wikipedia</a>
was born in Babylon c. 110 BCE, and died 10 CE (Common Era) in Jerusalem. (That would make him 120 years old.)</p>
</div>
<div class="western">
<p>It is interesting to compare the attitude of some
Jews about the New Testament with their attitude about the Talmud. We were listening to a rabbi claim in a video debate that if he could find just one error in the New Testament, the whole thing would be invalidated. Therefore, he asked, "Why bother with it?" He cited the differences in the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke.</p>
</div>
<div class="western">
<p>This is a very difficult subject (especially since the public records have been destroyed). Nevertheless, we believe those records were available when Matthew and Luke were inspired. These genealogies were never successfully refuted. But there were likely some endless debates over them. Genealogies were very important for many reasons. For example, they were needed to establish Jewish identity. Was someone really a Jew? Were they qualified to be a Priest? Could they be the Messiah?
Therefore, there were public and private records. But they were destroyed.</p>
</div>
<div class="western">
<p>In any case, the rabbi said he found about twenty five discrepancies between the two genealogies. (The idea that Matthew presented Joseph's genealogy while Luke presented Mary's genealogy did not sway him. There are other ideas.) Therefore, the
Jewish Rabbi asked, "Why bother with the New Testament?"</p>
</div>
<div class="western">
<p><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-KJV-5007"></a>But what could we say about the Talmud? There are multitudes of opinions and discrepancies about nearly everything. Should we advise him that (by his own criteria) the Talmud has been invalidated? In fact, the Talmud is invalidated by the Old Testament. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2) Jesus knew this about his law, so he disputed with the Pharisees.</p>
</div>
<div class="western">
<p>Are we to believe that Jesus disputed with the Pharisees “for laying aside the commandment of God” and then proceeded to put away the Jewish Kosher Food Laws? It seems so very hypocritical and unreasonable. But this is what some commentators, Jews and Christians say. Some believe that in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 Jesus used his authority to make all foods clean. Therefore, he eliminated the Kosher Food Laws. But why would Jesus switch from the subject of "false purity traditions" to Kosher Food Laws?</p>
</div>
<div class="western">
<p>Jesus continued his discussion of the traditions.
If we compare Matthew 15:11-20 with Mark 7:15-23, we can see plainly
that Jesus continued talking about purity traditions and not the Kosher Food Laws. (Note the comments under Matthew 15:20)</p></div>
<dl>
<dd><table border="1" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse"> <colgroup><col width="200"></col><col width="200"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr valign="TOP"><td width="200"><div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Matthew 15:11-20</span></span></div>
</td><td width="200"><div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Mark 7:15-23</span></span></div>
</td></tr>
<tr valign="TOP"><td width="200"><div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 0in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-KJV-23645"></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>11</b><i>Not that</i> which goeth into the mouth defileth a man;but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western">
<br />
<i>(This was said to the multitude and
included the Pharisees. It offended the Pharisees. “Not
that” has less of a universal connotation than “nothing.”
We should keep in mind that Jesus is talking about food that has
been eaten with unwashed hands. The Pharisees thought this would
defile a man. He is not introducing any new law. He is refuting
the “tradition of the elders” in front of a mixed
audience of Pharisees and disciples.)</i></div>
</td>
<td width="200"><div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 0in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-KJV-24479"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>15
</b>There is <i>nothing</i> from without a man, that entering
into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him,
those are they that defile the man.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western">
<br />
<i>(This was said to the multitude including
the Pharisees. “Nothing” has a universal connotation.
This could lead some to believe that both clean and unclean foods
were allowed. Some believe Mark wrote to the Gentiles and was
emphasizing that all foods are clean. However, this would distort
what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew. “Nothing”
can refer to the class of all clean foods.)</i></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="TOP">
<td width="200"><div style="margin-top: 0.08in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>17
</b></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Do
not ye yet understand, that </span></span></span></span><i><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">whatsoever
</span></span></span></i><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">entereth
in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the
draught?</span></span></span></span><i> </i></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0.08in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>(<span style="font-size: medium;">This
was what Jesus said to the disciples in the house. Jesus is
giving additional explanation. “Whatsoever” has a
universal connotation. It could lead his disciples to think any
food is okay. However, it referred to whatever clean food they
put in their mouth without washing their hands. “Whatsoever”
can refer to the class of all clean foods.)</span></i></span></span></div>
</td>
<td width="200"><div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 0in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-KJV-24482"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>18
</b>And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also?
Do ye not perceive, that <i>whatsoever</i> thing from without
entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>19
</b>Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly,
and goeth out into the draught, <i>purging all meats</i>? </span></span></span>
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<i><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-AMP-24483"></a>
(Verse 18 is basically the same as verse 17 in Matthew. “Purging
all meats” at the end of verse 19 is not found in Matthew.
Some commentators say Jesus is making all meats clean by
“purifying all meats.” Some translators actually use
the word “purifying” instead of “purging.”
“Purging” comes from the Greek word </i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size: medium;">katharizon
</span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size: medium;">which
means “cleansing</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">.”
</span></span><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>This word
can be taken literally or figuratively. It should be taken
literally as part of the digestion process that extracts
nutrition from the food and makes it all come out the same. Some
translators have become commentators with a Christian bias on
this passage. For example the </i></span></span><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Amplified
Bible </i></span></span><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>reads:</i>
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>19
</b></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Since
it does not reach </span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">enter
his heart but [only his] digestive tract, and so passes on [into
the place designed to receive waste]? Thus He was making </span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">declaring
all foods </span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">[ceremonially]
clean [that is, </span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>[</b></span></span></span><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207&version=AMP#fen-AMP-24483h"><span style="color: #b37162;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>h</b></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>]</b></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">abolishing
the ceremonial distinctions of the Levitical Law</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">].</span></span></span></span><i>)
</i><br />
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="TOP">
<td width="200"><div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 0in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-KJV-23652"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>18
</b>But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth
from the heart; and they defile the man.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0in; widows: 2;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-KJV-23653"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>19
</b>For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,
adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="orphans: 2; text-indent: 0in; widows: 2;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-KJV-23654"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">20
</b>These are the things which defile a man: <b>but to eat with
unwashen hands defileth not a man.</b></span></span></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>(The
last part of verse 20 is really the clincher. Jesus explains:
<b>“but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.”</b>
Therefore, we know that Jesus was talking about ritualistic
purity traditions instead of the Jewish Kosher Laws. Matthew
gives us no room to interpret this passage any other way.
Therefore, Mark 7:19 cannot mean the abolishment of the Jewish
Kosher Laws.)</i></span></span></div>
</td>
<td width="200"><div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 0in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-KJV-24484"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>20
</b>And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth
the man.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0in; widows: 2;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-KJV-24485"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>21
</b>For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil
thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0in; widows: 2;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-KJV-24486"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>22
</b>Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an
evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0in; widows: 2;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-KJV-24487"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>23
</b>All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.</span></span></span></div>
<br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</dd></dl>
<p>If Jesus abolished the Jewish Kosher Laws in Mark 7:19, Peter was totally unaware. In fact, some eight to ten years after Pentecost,
Peter responded to the heavenly command: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” with “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” (Acts 10:13-14) Peter had always observed the Kosher Food Laws. Peter must not have had “ears to hear”
when Jesus refuted the “tradition of the elders.” However, such a significant change in lifestyle would not have gone unnoticed.</p>
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-38113007-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-46129752315992380762012-05-24T18:18:00.000-05:002013-02-02T06:34:22.293-06:00<h1 style="text-align: center;">
Was Hillel right?</h1>
<div>
<br /></div>
In order to pit Jesus against the Law of Moses, instead of just
some of the ancient Jewish sages, some have obviously concluded that
Hillel was mostly right about divorce. Hillel correctly interpreted
the Law of Moses. Men could divorce their wives under the Law of
Moses for practically any reason. Jesus was just being more
conservative than Hillel when he put forth the idea that men could
divorce their wives for fornication alone. (Matthew 5:32, Matthew
19:9) Furthermore, we are told, that Jesus was preaching a new and a
more conservative Christian doctrine. But some of us cannot accept
the idea that Jesus fought against his own law before he became dead
to it and nailed it to the cross. (Romans 7ff., Colossians 2:14). We
also want to truly honor the disclaimer he made in Matthew 5:17-20
that he came not "to destroy the Law." Therefore, we are advocating a
more historical perspective.<br />
<br />
There was conservative legal precedent on this subject.
Conservative Jews had expressed their legal opinion on the writing
of divorcement found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. We first cited these
differences of opinion over Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in writing in the
mid-seventies (many years before the wide availability of the
internet). At the time, we personally knew of none who had cited
what we consider to be an original source document with ancient oral
traditions recorded in the Mishnah as a source of establishing the
opinions about divorce among the ancient Jews. These opinions were
put forth by famous rabbis in the time of Jesus before the
compilation of the Mishnah at the end of the second century of the
common era. These oral opinions were recorded in the Mishnah later
than the first century because of the destruction of the second
temple. This destruction made the preservation of these oral
traditions unlikely. The Pharisees did not want to lose them.
Therefore, the traditions were codified in the Mishnah (even though
many rabbis believed that the “Oral Traditions” should
remain oral and never be codified). But these oral traditions, which
can be found in the Mishnah, were not generally known by Gentile
Christians or cited by Christian scholars.<br />
<br />
Therefore, many years ago we investigated this subject by doing
what we considered to be some difficult research. We visited a local
rabbi to establish the rabbinical sources for the various opinions
among the ancients concerning Deuteronomy 24:1-4. At the time, a
rabbi in the local synagogue seemed pleased that we “Goyim”,
as he liked to refer to Gentiles, were not able to read the Mishnah
in the original language. He seemed pleased that his “Second
Torah” (but really his first Torah in our estimation) was like
a black box that only he and some of his peers knew about (no doubt
after years of diligent study). Many Orthodox rabbis also believe it
is necessary to know Hebrew to understand both the First Torah (our
Old Testament) and the Second Torah (their Oral Tradition). That
opinion excludes most Gentile Christians (and many Jews).
<br />
<br />
We feel that time has vindicated our original efforts with the
local rabbi to understand the “Oral Tradition” on
divorce. Now there is a plethora of information on the internet about
the rabbinical opinions concerning Deuteronomy 24:1-4. These Jewish
opinions on the internet correspond with our own original research in
the synagogue. But some, who are prone to shun extra-biblical
sources, are still not familiar with the rabbinical sources
surrounding the statements of Jesus about divorce. We understand
their orientation and perhaps their loathing of extra-biblical
sources. But these original source documents (collections of ancient
oral traditions) explain a lot about the historical and philosophical
climate in which Jesus lived. Jesus had to deal directly with some
of these oral traditions.<br />
<br />
Not long back we were reminded of this unfamiliarity with these
historical source documents on this subject when a minister of the
Gospel inquired of us about our opinion on divorce. We appreciated
his effort to get our opinion on the subject. We respected him as a
person—still do. But at one point in the conversation, we asked
him if he was familiar with what rabbis had said in the Mishnah on
the subject of divorce. He admitted that he was not familiar with the
material. We were surprised because he expressed an opinion and wrote
on the divorce controversy. Of course, he did this from a totally
Christian perspective. It seemed strange to us, especially with the
material so readily available on the internet, that he did not know
about these original Jewish source documents. We told him that we
were surprised that he was not aware of this material in the Mishnah.
However, we appreciated his honesty and his humility when he said he
did not know.
<br />
<br />
“I don't know” is often the best answer. We do not condemn anyone for not knowing about these extra-biblical sources,
but we recommend that people take a look at some of them (especially
before they write articles on this subject and lend their support and
their influence to a particular perspective). There are literally
thousands of “scholarly” opinions on the internet on this
subject, and many of them in no way correspond with the original
historical setting. Part of our objective in this writing is not to
prove that we are smarter, more “scholarly” or right;
but to emphasize the historical setting of this subject. Jesus did
not teach in a historical vacuum. Jesus addressed real world problems
with real or historical solutions. We especially want to challenge
the status quo on this subject. (Jesus did.) We believe that too
many people smugly take their positions on this subject for granted
and, sometimes even worse, only consult their local minister on the
subject (or just listen to what “they have heard” in
their local congregation from their favorite preacher or party). This
is the same mistake made by many of the Jews in the time of Jesus.<br />
<br />
For those who may not be familiar with the rabbinical grounds for
divorce, we quote from 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, <i>Because he has found in
her indecency in anything</i> (Deuteronomy 24:1).” C. And the
House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his dish, D. “since
it is said, <i>Because he has found in her indecency in anything</i>.”
E. R. Aqiba says, “Even if he found someone else prettier than
she, “since it is said, <i>And it shall be if she find no favor
in his eyes</i> (Deuteronomy 24:1).” (Neusner, 1987)<br />
<br />
The House of Shammai gave an interpretation that is very similar
to the interpretation of Jesus (unchastity). We are not saying that
it is exactly the same interpretation that Jesus gave (it might be).
However, no one can deny that the interpretation of the House of
Shammai is very conservative and very close to the interpretation
given by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount. This proves that
Deuteronmy 24:1-4 can be (and was) interpreted conservatively by some
rabbis under the Law.
<br />
<br />
While there was much written by the rabbis in Gittin, there is
very little written on the actual grounds for divorce which are given
in the very last part of Gittin. It is obvious that the grounds for
divorce range from the very conservative (Shammai) to the very
liberal (Hillel and Aqiba). Furthermore, this range of
interpretation is based on the very same passages in Deuteronomy 24.
Obviously, the grounds for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 were much
disputed. Therefore, Deuteronomy 24 begs for interpretation. Who
better to interpret it than Jesus? Therefore, we see the real world
problem. Clarification of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was really needed. This
passage was hotly disputed in the time of Jesus. And we see the
real world solution. Jesus gave them clarification even in the face
of opposition. Therefore, we accept his authoritative opinion (as the
Son of God) on this Jewish issue. And it is a Jewish issue.<br />
<br />
As noted by Jesus, and by history, the grounds for divorce given
by Hillel were the popular grounds for divorce. At one time, the
Jews utilized the interpretation of one school versus another based
upon their interpretation. Even today the Jews claim to take the
opinions of all the rabbis into consideration, but they go by the
“majority opinion” which is actually against the
teachings of the Law of Moses. Jews must listen to their rabbis even
when their rabbi may be wrong. In the case of divorce they go by
Hillel. Hillel has the more liberal and popular opinion. Just as long as they followed the legal formula of giving a
“writing of divorce” (a “Get”) they thought
they were morally justified.<br />
<br />
We do not know any Christians who actually
have given their Christian wives a Jewish “Get.” But
Orthodox Jews are supposed to give a “Get” which is a
particular kind of writing given only by a Jewish man to a Jewish
woman and approved by the appropriate Jewish authorities in a
rabinnical court. The Jewish man must do this voluntarily; and he
must do it in the proper court. Today, if he will not do it willingly,
he is often subject to corporal punishment or social isolation until
he is “willing” to comply. This does not surprise us. Many
Orthodox Jews do not accept divorces given by civil courts. If a
Jewish man will not willingly give his Jewish wife a “Get”
in a rabinnical court, she is deemed an Agunah or a “chained
woman.” Any offspring of an Agunah is a Mamzer or a “bastard.”
This is just another example where Christians cannot and will not
follow Jewish legal practices. But Christians adopt Jewish legal
practices when and where they can—at least in Spirit.
Incidentally, “Gittin” is the plural form of a “Get”
or a “writing of divorce.”<br />
<br />
Jesus explains that the Jewish men took the right of divorce too
far as well as for granted. Jesus quoted the teaching of rabbis,
“Furthermore it has been said Whoever divorces his
wife let him give her a certificate of divorce.” (Matthew 5:31)
These rabbis were emphasizing that if you want to divorce your wife,
write the proper document. Give her a “Get.” We see
their emphasis. Grounds were not a problem! Jesus recognized that
they were essentially teaching a “no fault” divorce for the man. Was
that what Moses said? Absolutely not. That is what they had heard their rabbis say in the synagogue. But Jesus did not agree.<br />
<br />
But according to the rabbis, if a woman so much as burnt the
bread, she could be sent out of the house. Talk about what some have
called the “innocent party.” She gets up too late, gets
the oven too hot and burns the bread. She has a bad day. Her
marriage is over! She is later stigmatized or made by her cruel
husband to commit adultery. How fair is that? How insensitive and
cruel is her husband to put her out in the cold over such a trivial thing? But such was their supposed right. We want to stress (contrary to popular and sometimes Christian
opinion) that indiscriminate and trivial (no fault) divorce for the man was not
the instruction of Moses. The law did not need to be changed. They
just needed to change their interpretations.
<br />
<br />
Why do preachers pit Jesus against Moses? In our estimation, It is
okay to pit Jesus against the interpretation of Hillel. (Hillel was
just another man with an opinion.) Jesus said he was wrong. When
Jesus gave his authority against the teachings of Hillel, he was
just setting the record straight under the Law of Moses. However,
some preachers have Jesus blaspheming Moses. They have Jesus making
new legislation prematurely against Moses on the fly in the Sermon
on the Mount. They have Jesus seemingly rectifying Mosaical mistakes.
(This is just another “terrible implication.” What?
Moses, and, therefore, God could not get it right when they
considered the circumstances of the people of Israel?) But,
according to Jesus' disclaimer (Matthew 5:17-20), Jesus did not see
any real problems with the Law of Moses. On the contrary, the Law of
Moses was valid and holy. The problem was with the
way some of these rabbis distorted and handled the Law. They needed
to renew their respect for God's Word. They needed to develop better
interpretation skills. They needed to change their emphasis. They
badly needed to jettison some of their oral traditions (like false
and frivolous forswearing) which contradicted the commandments of
God. (Matthew 23)
<br />
<br />
Incidentally, we believe that Jesus used absolute language and
told them to “swear not at all” in the Sermon on the
Mount for the same reasons that you do not give a child a gun. They
had proven they were too immature and unworthy to handle this issue.
It was too difficult for them. Furthermore, due to all the false
teaching on this subject, they were badly confused. They could not
make the proper distinctions. They were not able to bear detailed
instruction. Therefore, the safest thing that they could do under
the circumstances was just stay entirely away from the issue. Do not
swear. James, the brother of Jesus at Jerusalem in the Jewish arm of
the church, sent a letter to the “twelve tribes which are
scattered abroad” and reiterated this admonition. Truthfulness
is good advice for everyone. But this was especially appropriate for
Jewish Christians. There were still Jewish Christians who could fall
into the traditional trap of swearing by the wrong thing. They could
easily find themselves forswearing. Since James the Just (brother of Jesus) died in approximately 62 of the common era (before the destruction of the second temple), this is just a historical
reality.<br />
<br />
We believe that Jesus typically used hyperbole to emphasize
dangers which people should avoid. For example, when Jesus was trying
to dramatize the sometimes very real and powerful temptation to covet
a woman and to commit adultery with her he said: “... if your
right hand causes you to sin, cut it off...” When Jesus said
this, he was not expecting his disciples to show up with missing
limbs. His statement was plain enough. His disciples understood that
he was just dramatizing the need to avoid temptation at any cost. His
teaching in no way contradicted the Law of Moses. In fact, his
teaching to avoid temptation was just good advice. Solomon said
something similar when he advised young men not to go near to the
door of an adulteress. Stay away. Do not make provisions for the
flesh. In the Sermon on the Mount, the message of Jesus was not to
“change the Law.” The message of Jesus was to “change the man” by giving him a deeper understanding of his existing
Law.
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1533456689137470914" name="en-KJV-28104"></a>We want to mention the goodness of the
Old Law. We know Jesus gave us a new and a better covenant after he
nailed the Old Covenant to the cross. But let us never disparage the
Old Law. That is what we are doing when we claim that rabbis such as
Hillel were essentially right in what amounted to no fault positions
on divorce. This reflects badly on God. But that is what we are
doing when we say Jesus taught against Moses. The Old Law was
perfectly suited for what God wanted to accomplish. It was a
glorious law. Are we hearing that a law that was good enough to
perfect our Savior was not good enough to elevate his disciples above
the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees? If we have such
a lowly opinion of the Law of Moses, let us say, we have a pitifully
low opinion of God's Word. This was certainly not the opinion of
Jesus. Paul said: "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that
it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that
sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” (Romans
7:12-13) In this passage, Paul points out that the law was not the
problem. The law was good. The sinful disposition of man was the
problem. The law just showed how truly sinful man really was. It
just showed how much people needed the perfect sacrifice of Jesus!
Therefore, the problem with the law was that nobody (except Jesus)
could keep it. It was weak in the flesh. Jesus solved this problem
for man by living perfectly without sin. Therefore, the law
complemented Jesus. As Paul cried out in despair, “O wretched
man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”
He said: “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
(Romans 7:24-25) Therefore, let us be very careful about disparaging a law
which perfected Jesus and, consequently, perfects us. We need this
law just as much as we need the perfection of Jesus.<br />
<br />
Invariably, when a preacher wants to emphasize the superiority and the authority of Jesus over the Law of Moses, he quotes: “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Matthew 7:28-29) Preachers are usually trying to emphasize at least two things by quoting this passage. One, it was “his doctrine” and not the Law of Moses. Two, Jesus had the “authority” to speak against the Law of Moses.
<br />
<br />
Jesus was not exclusively teaching new doctrine. We have already tried to
show that Jesus supported the Law with his disclaimer (Matthew
5:17-20). We endeavored to show in a previous writing that Jesus
used expressions such as: "It is written", "What did Moses command you?" and "have
you never read" as he appealed to and approved of the written
word. We asked why Jesus appealed to the words written in
Deuteronomy with the expression “it is written” in his
temptation and then taught against the written word (according to
some) in his Sermon on the Mount? We indicated that Jesus sometimes
objected to “oral traditions” put forth by the rabbis. We
said that Jesus indicated his objection to these traditions with the
literary device of “You have heard … but I say.”
Of course, some preachers emphasize just the “but I say”
part of this literary construction; and they stress that Jesus was
opposing the Law of Moses. We got into some of the “terrible
implications” by stating that Jesus could not speak against the
Law of Moses without condemning himself with his “least in the
kingdom of heaven” pronouncement against those who would not
“do <i>and</i> teach” the Law of Moses. We even touched on his use of
“universal language” when we said he was speaking especially to
Jews. For example could a (Jewish) man put away his (Jewish) wife
for every cause? We stressed that this question applied to what the
Jewish man could do to his Jewish wife, and not what the Jewish wife
could do to her Jewish husband. A Jewish wife could not give her
husband a “Get.” Of course, the impersonal and universal
use of the term “you” by Jesus in the “You have
heard” expression in the Sermon on the Mount was originally
spoken to Jews who had actually “heard” these Jewish
interpretations (along with some of the misplaced emphasis by the
rabbis) in their synagogues. He could not have been speaking to
Gentiles when he said “you” because Gentiles were
usually never in Jewish synagogues and had never had the opportunity
to hear these things. Besides, Gentiles were not his original
disciples. Therefore, a Gentile would miss some of the Jewish
details in the Sermon on the Mount even though much of what Jesus
said in his Sermon on the Mount can generally be applied (in
principle and not in every Jewish detail) to anyone (Jew or Gentile).<br />
<br />
We do not doubt the authority of Jesus. However, we do doubt that Jesus
used his authority against the Law of Moses. What is so wonderful
about Jesus is that Jesus was willing to humble himself and become
subservient (obedient) to the Law of Moses even though he was
technically equal with God. Jesus had authority, but he did not use
it when it counted the most (like in living a perfect life <b>under
</b>the Law). (Romans 7:1, Galatians 4:4)<br />
<br />
When we were young, we liked the slogan of a company that manufactured
block making machines. That slogan said: “Big enough to serve
you and small enough to know you.” This slogan reminds us of
Jesus. Jesus was definitely “big enough.” As the Son of
God in heaven, and not just another rabbi, he humbled himself even
unto the cruel death of the cross. That is why God has also highly
exalted him. Jesus was willing to go to the cross for us. He was
willing to bow his neck and bloody his brow under the Law. What a
savior! What a tragedy for us if Jesus had not been this type of a
God. He could have called ten thousand angels (as the song goes).
But he did not. In his temptation Jesus assured Satan (Matthew 4ff.) that he was
going to be the best servant God ever had by living (and dying) by
the written word. We love 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. “For I
delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was
buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the
Scriptures.” Thank God he had this capacity and was willing to
do it! No, we never question the authority of Jesus.<br />
<br />
Sometimes preachers obscure the controversy over Deuteronomy 24:1-4 by citing a
variety of divorces in the Old Testament. They cite concubines,
servants and women taken in military conquest. We note, these women
they cite often did not come into the marriage like a free woman;
they did not usually have the same marital status while they were in
the marital relationship; and they did not necessarily leave the
marriage like a free woman. Citing these kinds of relationships
simply obscures the controversy over Deuteronomy 24:1-4. That a man
did not fulfill his marital obligations in a marriage has nothing to
do with Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is about something
“found” in the woman and putting her away. It is about a
Jewish man giving a Jewish wife a “Get.” It is about the
rabbinical abuse of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. It is about a well-known
Jewish controversy. Bringing in all these other examples into the
mix is basically not what Jesus was addressing in Matthew 5 and
Matthew 19. These are side issues that simply divert our attention away
from the central issue. That is, they are “red herrings.”
Therefore, it is wrong to bring them into this question because
Jesus was not addressing every issue that men can imagine in the Old
Testament (or the New Testament for that matter). In fact, (not like
us) he gave very little time to the entire subject. He was just
citing many examples where his disciples had heard the wrong thing.
Still, as always, what little he had to say was very important.<br />
<br />
The emphasis of Jesus was not the same as the rabbis. They were looking
at the supposed rights of the man under the Law of Moses. All a man
had to do was follow the proper procedure and give his wife a “Get.”
On the other hand, Jesus wanted them to think about this issue from
the perspective of their wife. He also wanted them to think about
this issue from the perspective of their Father in Heaven. He wanted them to get away from just some of the technical issues which rabbis
spent most of their time on. When we read “Gittin” in
the Mishnah, we are reading technicalities and procedures for giving
a “Get.” But Jesus, who was always concerned about the
person and their condition, was looking at this issue from what they
were actually doing to their wives. Jesus did not speak like the
scribes and the Pharisees. Therefore Jesus said: "But
I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for
the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
(Matthew 5:32)<br />
<br />
Many take this statement of Jesus to be Christian teaching. Nevertheless,
what Jesus said was true when he said it. Suppose it is Christian
teaching. Do Christians really want what Jesus said? Not really.
Here is an example. There is this poor housewife. All she does all
day is take care of the kids, run to the store, pick up after her
husband and make herself look pretty. She stays home all day, and one day
her husband comes home from work and says: “Honey, I want a
divorce.” She asks why. He trumps up some trivial charge and
says: “You are too good to me.” And she is. She does
everything he says. She is completely innocent. But he puts her
away anyhow. Do Christians want her to be classified as an
“adulteress” for the rest of her life when she finds
another man? Absolutely not. She is basically innocent. But Jesus
says the man is causing her to “commit adultery.” Now she
has been stigmatized as an adulteress. Her fault? Is that really
what Christians want? Not really. But that is what Jesus said.
After most Christians really think about her plight for a moment, as
Jesus described it in Matthew 5:32, they will most likely reject what
Jesus said. Christian women do not want to remain single, or to be classified
as an adulteress, for the rest of their life. Was it her fault that
she married a mean man?<br />
<br />
No doubt, if she is a Christian, she will go
to 1 Corinthians 7 to find a loophole. Keep in mind that there was
no 1 Corinthians 7 when Jesus said this. If she is a Christian, she
may begin to talk about “fornication after the fact” and
all kinds of other esoteric subjects. Perhaps she will look into the
“mental divorce” aspect. What did she ever do to deserve
such a plight? But that is what Jesus said. That is why Jesus in
essence said to his disciples: “Look at what you are doing.
You have ruined a life. You have destroyed a home. You have turned a
fine woman into an adulteress.” <br />
<br />
Do we suppose that God will
hold the man guiltless for all of this? Well, the rabbis thought so.
The man had followed all the technicalities and the proper
procedures under the Law. Really? Well, he gave her a “Get”
according the the Law of Moses. (Or was it that he gave her a “Get”
according to the opinions of the rabbis?)<br />
<br />
Was Hillel right? Could divorce be had for almost any reason under the
Law of Moses? Let us hear the prophet under the Law. "But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.” …. “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath
been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom
thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife
of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And
wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed
to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of
his youth. For the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one
covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of
hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not
treacherously. Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord,
and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?” ( Malachi 2:14, Malachi 2:15-17) Was Hillel right?
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-38113007-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1533456689137470914.post-345136662498747342012-04-01T15:01:00.000-05:002013-02-02T06:34:56.954-06:00<h1 style="text-align: center;">
Waco Address</h1>
<br />
I was asked to give a speech on Marriage, Divorce and
Remarriage; and I was also asked to give a speech on the Holy Ghost. Of
course, giving a speech on either, in the time allotted, is similar to trying to
get a drink out of a fire hydrant. However, I can see some commonality
between the two subjects. For example, Jesus used some "universal
language" in the Great Commission in Mark 16 when he said: "These signs
shall follow them that believe." There are many believers, and we are all
believers, but do these signs follow us? Likely, none of us believe that we
can pick up deadly serpents or drink deadly poison, such as cyanide, without
being harmed. And we can find scriptures, such as in Acts 5:12, where it
says that "By the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders
wrought." When we keep the audience of Jesus in mind, we understand these believers were a select group of people. He wasn't speaking to "all believers", such as
you and me.<br />
<br />
In Matthew 19:3, there is a similar situation when the Pharisees came
tempting Jesus by asking him: "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife
for every cause?" I believe we need to keep in mind who was asking this
question. We need to keep in mind the audience of Jesus. When we can understand their question we can understand the answer that Jesus gave to
their question.<br />
<br />
I was speaking to a minister of the Gospel, not long back, and he said he
believed that the primary objective of Jesus was to "preach the Gospel." In
fact, he quoted me the scripture that "The law of the prophets were until
John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached and every man
presseth into it." I told him I thought he should notice the very next verse
where Jesus gave a disclaimer. Jesus said in the next verse that "It easier for
heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail." Why would
Jesus give this disclaimer if his only objective was to "preach the Gospel"?<br />
<br />
I can see Jesus accomplishing more than one objective. Jesus came not
only to "preach the Gospel", but he also came to "confirm" or to "fulfill" the
Old Testament. I believe that Jesus could easily accomplish the purpose of
"preaching the Gospel" and "confirming the Old Testament." In fact, in Luke
16, where the scripture was given that "The law on the prophets were until
John, and since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man
presseth the into it", we can go a little bit further. There even seems to be a
scripture that is somewhat out of place in that passage. Verse 18 says that
"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth
adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband
committeth adultery." That scripture seems to be somewhat out of place. But
it is not out of place when we consider the fact that some might interpret the
event of John the Baptist preparing the way of the lord, and Jesus preaching
the gospel of the kingdom, as something that is in opposition to the Law of
Moses.<br />
<br />
Jesus went on to give an allegory in Luke 16 about "Lazarus and the Rich
Man." I know many believe in the "sufficiency of the scriptures" and so do I.
In this story about "Lazarus and the Rich Man", Jesus gives the Pharisees a
lesson about the "sufficiency of the scriptures." Jesus describes a very bad
situation where a very poor man, with sores on his body, lay at the rich
man's gate, while the rich man fared sumptuously every day. The only
friends that Lazarus had were the dogs that came and licked his wounds.
Well, eventually, Lazarus died and was carried into Abraham's bosom. The
rich man also eventually died and lifted up his eyes in Hell. He could look
across this chasm and see that Lazarus was being comforted while he was
being tormented. His situation was drastically reversed. By and by, he made
a request of Abraham that Abraham would send Lazarus to his father's
house, where he had five brethren, and warn them not to come to this place
of torment that he was in. Nevertheless, Father Abraham would not fulfill
the request of the rich man. He told him, rather, that his brothers have Moses and the Prophets, "let them hear them." So I think we can see that the
scriptures were sufficient, at the time. At the time, if they wouldn't hear
Moses and the Prophets, they wouldn't likely hear even if someone would
rise from the dead, such as Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
I asked this minister, that pointed out that the “Law and the Prophets were
until John”, if he preached the same gospel that Jesus and John preached.
What was the gospel that Jesus and John preached? Well, they both preached
that the "kingdom of heaven was at hand." I also asked if he prayed the
"Lord's Prayer", especially the part where Jesus said "thy kingdom come thy
will be done on earth as it is in heaven." He said he did because he wanted
the kingdom to come into the lives of the people. Well, I can see how we can
pray that prayer in some ultimate sense. But I believe that Jesus was praying
that prayer in an imminent sense. And I also believe that he was preaching
"the imminence" of the kingdom of heaven. He was preaching that the
"kingdom of heaven was at hand." And, in fact, in Mark the ninth chapter
and verse one, he said: "Many of that generation would not pass away until
they had seen the kingdom of God come with power." I believe the kingdom
of God did come with power in Acts the second chapter. That's why I don't
preach the same gospel that Jesus and John preached. I don't preach an
"imminent kingdom." I also don't pray for the kingdom to come in any
imminent sense because I believe the kingdom has come. To me, it seems
unnecessary to pray for that which we have already received. Of course we
can still pray for the kingdom to come in an "ultimate" sense into the lives of
people. But we should not forget that we have been "translated" into the
kingdom of his dear son. That's why I preach that the kingdom of heaven is
"here and now." I don't preach the same gospel that Jesus preached. The
gospel I preach is more like the gospel that Paul preached. Paul determined
not to know anything but "Jesus Christ and him crucified." He primarily
preached "the cross." He preached the "death, burial and resurrection" of
Jesus Christ. That's the same gospel I preach.<br />
<br />
On the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage, I want to examine the
question that was asked Jesus by the Pharisees. As I have already stated, I
believe that we need to keep the audience of Jesus in mind. The audience
was very important. Of course, the Pharisees asked Jesus a question about
marriage, divorce and remarriage using "universal language." They asked if
it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for "every" cause. I don't
believe they meant just "any man" or "any wife." I believe they were asking
about "Jewish men" and "Jewish wives", because they were asking what was
"lawful."<br />
<br />
Gentiles didn't live by the Law of Moses. They lived by a law of the
conscience, as was explained by Paul in Romans. Therefore, I don't believe
they were asking what was lawful for Gentiles to do. I believe they were
asking what was lawful for Jewish men to do. That's why I believe that if we
can understand their question, then we can understand his answer, because I
believe that he gave an answer that corresponded with their question.<br />
<br />
Why would he give an answer to a question they didn't ask? Why would
he speak about the future when they wanted to know about the present?
Therefore, I would like to say that essentially they asked this question: "Was
it lawful for a (Jewish man), parenthetically, to put away his (Jewish wife),
parenthetically, for "every" cause? When we appropriately consider his
audience, these parentheses, that I have added, don't do any harm at all to
their question. Therefore, I believe that if we can understand that they asked
a "Jewish question", then we can clearly understand that he gave them a
"Jewish answer." Why would he give them an answer that was "off the
subject" and that "did not pertain" to their question? Why would he give
them a "Gentile Christian answer" when Christianity didn't even yet exist?
We know Jesus prospectively talked about a "coming kingdom", but he gave
"current answers" to "current questions."<br />
<br />
One of the problems that we have in the Holy Ghost question, that I was asked to speak on, was that we often "misappropriate"
language that doesn't pertain to us. The same thing with the "marriage
question." We often appropriate language that does not pertain to Christians.
Many things that were said to "first century Christians", about the Holy
Ghost, simply do not pertain to us today. Therefore we should not try to
appropriate those things, or should I say "misappropriate" those things, that
were said to "first century Christians" about the "gifts of the Holy Ghost."<br />
<br />
First, let me say this about the question that the Pharisees asked Jesus in
Matthew the 19th chapter. Jesus was always very "respectful" of the Law of
Moses. Some people who believe that Jesus was adding to the Law of Moses
are very fond of using the expression "but I say" which is found in Matthew
the fifth chapter. They suppose that Jesus was using his authority as a license
to speak against the Law of Moses. However, Jesus used many other
expressions to show his approval of the Law of Moses. For example, when
he was tempted by Satan in the wilderness he very plainly stated: "It is
written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of God." This expression "it is written" showed profound
respect for the Law of Moses. In fact, Jesus resisted the Devil throughout his
entire temptation by quoting from Deuteronomy. Why would Jesus extol the written word in his temptation, and then oppose it in his teaching?
In fact, Jesus did not oppose the written word.<br />
<br />
In Mark 10, a parallel passage to Matthew 19, the Pharisees came
tempting Jesus, and Jesus asked them this question on marriage, divorce and
remarriage: "What did Moses command you?" Would he ask them this
question if he was unconcerned about what Moses said? In Mark 10, they
had gotten the point that Moses had not "commanded", but rather he had
merely "suffered" or tolerated divorce. This was the same point that Jesus
emphasized in Matthew the 19th chapter. Another expression that Jesus used
in Matthew the 19th chapter, to show his respect for the written word, was
"have you never read." Again, Jesus appealed not to his own authority, but
to the written word. I personally believe that the Jews would not have
tolerated disrespect for the Law of Moses for one minute. Although they
might disagree about what the Law said, certainly, they all agreed that the
Law of Moses was very important; and they all appealed to it.<br />
<br />
Now in Matthew the fifth chapter, some Christians suppose that Jesus
opposed the Law of Moses, or went beyond the Law of Moses, when he
used the expression: "You have heard that it hath been said, but I say unto
you." Was Jesus opposing the Law of Moses, or was he opposing what they
had "heard said" about the Law of Moses? Was he opposing the "written
word", or was he opposing the "oral tradition" about the written word (that
later evolved into the Mishnah, the Gemara and the Talmud)? In other
words, was he opposing the "written word" or was he a opposing the "oral
traditions"? The expression "you have heard" leads me to believe that he was
opposing the "oral traditions," because this was not something that, at the
time, was written down.<br />
<br />
In Matthew 15 and Mark 7, Jesus was reprimanded by the Pharisees for
violating the "oral traditions" or the "tradition of the elders." He also
reprimanded the Pharisees for violating the commandment of God with their
traditions. Obviously, Jesus thought the commandments of God were much
more important than their traditions. And, therefore, this shows us that Jesus
had a lot of respect for the commandments of God. So why would Jesus
uphold the commandments of God, on one hand, and oppose the
commandments of God on another? That's why I don't believe that Jesus was
opposing the written word in Matthew the fifth chapter when he used the
formula "You have heard....but I say." However, some Christians do
interpret the teachings of Jesus in Matthew the fifth chapter as opposition to
the Law of Moses. To them it seems like Jesus is teaching against the Law
of Moses.<br />
<br />
For example, Jesus used the hyperbole expression "swear not all" in
opposition to frivolous foreswearing. Some people interpret this categorical
statement of Jesus "swear not a all" as opposition to the Law of Moses, when
he was merely opposing frivolous forswearing. They were obviously guilty
of trivial and false swearing that Jesus opposed. I personally think it is
wrong to confuse hyperbole with total prohibition. In fact, the Apostle Paul
himself later made oaths and took vows. For example, the Apostle Paul used
the expression of an oath to certify to the Corinthians in 2nd Corinthians
1:23 the truth of his statement. He said: "Moreover, I call God for a record
upon my soul." There is no doubt that this statement was in the form of an
oath. But often the Pharisees made trivial oaths, and had forgotten the true
seriousness and the true sense of oaths as intended in the Law of Moses.
Therefore, Jesus used hyperbole, and told them to "swear not all."<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Jesus gave his audience a disclaimer in Matthew 5:17 and told them not to think that he had come to destroy the Law and the
Prophets, he had not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, he had come
to fulfill them, or accomplish them or to confirm their truth. Even today
Christians should consider this disclaimer of Jesus very carefully when they
want to suppose that he opposed the Law of Moses, because they are
sometimes thinking exactly what Jesus told them not to think. I think we're
making a very serious mistake when we discount this disclaimer that Jesus
gave them.<br />
<br />
Some Christians will readily agree that Jesus kept the Law of Moses, that
he lived by it perfectly, without sin. But they sometimes make the statement
that he "taught against" the Law of Moses; and they don't seem to be
understanding what that statement entails. That statement entails what I call
some "terrible implications." In his disclaimer, Jesus made the statement that
"Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach man so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.
But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven." Jesus was speaking about the Law of Moses, for he
had just said: "Til heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the Law til all be fulfilled." Some Christians will readily admit
that Jesus did the Law, and kept the Law, but they will not readily admit that
he was teaching the Law (in spite of the fact that Jesus said do <i>and</i> teach). In
the disclaimer of Jesus, teaching was just as important as doing.<br />
<br />
I told this minister of the Gospel, who thought that Jesus had come
primarily to preach the kingdom of God, that there were some very serious
implications in his doctrine. I told him that his doctrine would undermine the
perfect sacrifice of Jesus. And he said, "Well, how is that"? I said: "Well, if Jesus taught against the Law, then he was a blasphemer (because that's what
blasphemy means); and if he was a blasphemer, then he was a sinner under
the Law of Moses; and if he was a sinner under the Law of Moses, he was
not a perfect sacrifice; and if he was not a perfect sacrifice, then we are all in
trouble." These are just some of the necessary inferences of Jesus teaching
against the Law of Moses. As we can see, these are certainly "terrible
inferences."<br />
<br />
Furthermore, I said: "You are causing many Christians to become what I
call Judaizers." A Judaizer is someone who tries to appropriate, or should I
say misappropriate, Jewish traditions. I told him: "If I tried to reinstate
Jewish betrothal, wouldn't I be a Judaizer? Or if I tried to bind the Jewish
kosher laws on Christians, wouldn't I be a Judaizer? And, by the same token,
if I try to bind the answer of Jesus in Matthew 19:9, to a Jewish question, on
Christians, am I not a Judaizer?"<br />
<br />
I believe in Galatians Paul makes it very plain that there are some very
serious consequences when we try to bind Jewish traditions on Christians. In
the first chapter of Galatians, Paul refers to binding Jewish laws on
Christians as preaching "another gospel." As a consequence, Paul said: "Let
him be accursed." Obviously, this is a very serious consequence. Although,
Paul was primarily speaking of binding circumcision on Christians; he was
not entirely speaking of binding just circumcision on Christians. By reading
such chapters as Acts 15, we can understand that some Christian Jews
intended to bind the entire Law of Moses on Christians. Paul made it plain
that it was logically impossible to bind just part of the Law of Moses on
Christians. In Deuteronomy 27:26, Moses had attached a curse to everyone
who would not "confirm all the words of the Law to do them." That's why
Paul said, in Galatians 5:3, if a person decided to be circumcised, he was "a
debtor to do the whole law." Likewise, if we try to bind Matthew 19:9 on
Christians, then we are "duty bound" to keep the entire Law.<br />
<br />
It was impossible to "cherry pick" the Law of Moses. A person had to
keep the whole thing. The Law of Moses was not a buffet where people can
"pick and choose" what they wanted. Naturally, it was impossible for anyone
to keep the entire Law of Moses (except for Jesus Christ). In James 2:10,
James said: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one
point, he is guilty of all." That's why we need Jesus Christ because he lived
perfectly under the Law of Moses. He was the perfect sacrifice. In Galatians
5:4, Paul talked about another very serious consequence of trying to keep the
Law of Moses. He said if you try to be "justified by the law" you are "fallen
from grace." What greater consequence can there be than "falling from
grace"? And so a man who's trying to bind Matthew 19:9 on Christians is making them a debtor to the entire Law of Moses. He is also causing
Christians to "fall from grace."<br />
<br />
In referring to Matthew 19:9, some ministers state that they don't want to
bind anything on Christians that the Lord did not bind on Christians. And
they don't know that they are unwittingly, perhaps unknowingly, binding the
entire Law of Moses on Christians when they try to enforce Matthew 19:9.
Since Jesus is not speaking to Christians in Matthew 19:9, to appropriate it,
or misappropriate it, is to become like the Galatians, and to become
Judaizers. And to become a Judaizer, as we have seen, is no small thing in
the mind of the Apostle Paul.<br />
<br />
If we apply the disclaimer that Jesus made in Matthew 5:17 to Jesus, there
is an absurd implication involved in that application. In verse 19 of Matthew
5 Jesus said: "Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least
commandments (of the Law of Moses as we have seen) and shall teach man
so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever
shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven." Now we want to make an application of this disclaimer to Jesus. If
Jesus taught against the Law of Moses, then would he not be "least in the
kingdom of heaven" by his own words? We can see the absurdity of this
implication; because in Revelations 19:16 we are told that Jesus is "King of
Kings and Lord of Lords." Certainly, he is not "least in the kingdom of
heaven." This implication is obviously terrible and absurd, and that's why I
call it one of the "terrible implications." If we are teaching that Jesus taught
against the Law of Moses, we are implying that he's “least” in the kingdom
of heaven and that's an impossibility. Therefore, we should be very careful
not to teach that Jesus taught against the Law of Moses.<br />
<br />
Now let's examine a few more things in Matthew the 19th chapter. Jesus
said in verse 4, "Have ye not read (indicating his great respect for the written
word) that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and
shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they
are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder." I have heard that when Jesus gave the divorce law,
in Matthew 19:9, that he was intending to bring the Jews back to God's
original intentions. This seems strange to me because God never intended
divorce at all. God only intended a marriage. When Jesus commented about
God's original intention, which only included marriage, they wondered what
had become of the divorce law. They wondered what had become of the "bill
of divorce" that can be read about in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Therefore, they
asked Jesus "Why did Moses command to give her a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" As we mentioned before, Moses had only "suffered"
them to put away their wives. Jesus said Moses did this because of the
"hardness of their hearts." Now we might suppose that Moses simply gave
them a writing of divorce because of the "hardness of their hearts." But Jesus
did more than just acknowledge that Moses gave them a writing of divorce.
Jesus went on to elaborate that there was something more specific than just
“burning the bread” involved. Moses used the term "some uncleanness" or
"ervah." It means a "matter of nakedness." It's the same term we can find in
Leviticus 18 and 20 about having inappropriate sexual relationships with
those who are prohibited. Therefore, Jesus elaborated and said: "And I say
unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her
which is put away doth commit adultery." Certainly, fornication is much
more "specific" than just "burning the bread."<br />
<br />
I believe that fornication is an "umbrella term" that can include sexual
intercourse before marriage, and also sexual relationships after marriage, or
sexual relationships during betrothal. The case of Joseph and Mary is a good
example of possible intercourse during or before betrothal. Of course, she
was the only human witness to her conception. And Mary was the only one
who realized that she was still a virgin, and had not engaged in sexual
intercourse. The Pharisees thought that Mary had engaged in sexual
intercourse, during or before betrothal, when they said "we be not born of
fornication" (and they might just as well have added "like you were").<br />
<br />
Fornication during betrothal was a form of adultery because it involved
mixing the seed of one man with the betrothed of another man. And when
something is impure, we consider it to be adulterated. Mixing seed in the
field implied adulteration, as well as mixing various forms of cloth together.
Putting new wine in old wine skins would have been a form of "spiritual
adultery"; and Jesus trying to have a relationship with the church while he
was having a relationship with the Law of Moses, would have been a form
of “spiritual adultery.” In Jeremiah 3:8 when God saw that Israel committed
adultery, he "put her away" and gave her a "bill of divorce." Therefore,
"some uncleanness" can involve adultery. In Deuteronomy 24, if a woman
went and married another man, she could not return to her husband because
the "land would be greatly polluted." That is, the woman he put away had
been considered his property (or his field) and he could not mix another
man's seed in his field. That would have been adultery. When she became
the wife of another man, she became "defiled" or polluted or adulterated.<br />
<br />
I personally believe it is very questionable that she had the right to become
the wife of another man. Most versions in Deuteronomy 24 simply state "and if" she become the wife of another man in place of the word "may"
(which we take as permission). I don't believe we should forget that
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is "descriptive" and "case law" and is merely
"describing a situation" and is not necessarily giving permission for the
woman to become another man's wife. Of course, that concept is subject to
debate as most concepts are. Let us not forget that she became "defiled" by
her marriage to another man (and not just defiled to her former husband).<br />
<br />
I also personally believe that the man committed adultery by the act of
putting away his wife in Matthew 19:9, unless he put her away for
fornication. In Matthew 19:9 the word adultery is in the Greek in the
"middle voice" and is reflexive. That means whatever he's doing to the
woman he's also doing to himself. After all, she is "bone of his bone and
flesh of his flesh"; and he has involved his marriage in adultery, when he
puts away his wife, because likely she will become the wife of another man.
As Matthew 5 says, he is "causing her to commit adultery." But if she is
guilty of fornication, she has caused herself to commit adultery.<br />
<br />
In Matthew 19:10, the disciples of Jesus recognize that his teaching on
divorce immediately applied to them because they said to him: "If the case
of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." Jesus did not correct
their view and say this was for the future, or for Gentile Christians in the
future. They understood it was for them right at that time.<br />
<br />
In Mark 10:12 Jesus said something to his disciples "in the house" that he
did not say in Matthew 19. In Mark 10:12, he said: "And if a woman shall
put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
A Jewish woman did not have the right to put away her husband directly
under the Law of Moses. Now she might indirectly cause him to put her
away, but she could not directly put him away. The Jews have a term for
this. It is called "Agunah" which means a "chained woman." She is a
woman who is "chained" to her husband because he will not give her a
divorce.<br />
<br />
Strangely, some Christians suppose that Jesus made the woman equal with
the man when he denied her the right to get a divorce in Mark 10:12. Some
Christians claim that when Jesus denied the right of divorce to a woman, he
gave her the "implied right" to the exception that was given to a Jewish man.
I personally believe that Jesus was simply acknowledging that Jewish
women were divorcing their husbands, and he was denying them that right.
He may have been stating the obvious, and it may seem superfluous to us,
but we can see that such women as Herodias were actually putting away
their husbands. John the Baptist lost his head because he pointed out the
obvious to Herodias and Herod.<br />
<br />
I don't think we should be oblivious to the fact that many Jewish people
were being assimilated by the surrounding Greco-Roman cultures. The
family of Herod, in particular, had very close ties to very powerful Romans
and Greeks. In fact, the Herods could not have ruled Israel without the
acquiescence, and the full support, of Rome. I suppose then it would take a
lot of courage on the part of Jesus to prohibit divorce to women given the
fact that Herodias, who had been married to one of her uncles, divorced him,
and married her other uncle. In any case, John the Baptist referred to her as
the "wife" of Herod's brother. We can infer from that, she was legitimately
the wife of Herod's brother.<br />
<br />
In recent years, divorces written by women have been discovered in Israel. (Josephus mentions several women who inappropriately put away their husbands.) Therefore, we can assume that Jewish women were putting away their
husbands unlawfully.<br />
<br />
Christian women who desire to put away their husbands, because they
suppose they have “the cause,” should be mindful of the fact that
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is about a man "putting away a woman." Likewise, the
language in Matthew 19 is about a "man putting away a woman" (and not
just "a man", a "Jewish man" putting away a "Jewish woman").<br />
<br />
I want to close by saying that in Matthew 19 Jesus gave an answer to the
greatest question that has ever been asked. That question is simply "Good
master what must I do to inherit eternal life"? We notice that Jesus did not
give this young man a "Christian answer." Rather, he gave him a "Jewish
answer." He said: "...if thou will enter into life, keep the commandments."
Now I believe that he meant all the commandments of the Law of Moses.
Well, the rich young ruler asked: "Which commandments"? There were
ten commandments. The first commandments dealt with the relationship of
a Jew to God. For example, he was not to take the name of his Lord in vain.
The last commandments, or the last table of the ten commandments, dealt
with the relationship of a Jewish man to his neighbor. For example, he was
not to covet his neighbor's wife. We might notice that Jesus did not give the
same answer, or a Christian answer, that Peter gave in Acts the second
chapter to that question "What must I did to be saved"? Peter said in Acts 2:
"Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins." Jesus did not give that answer. He did leave the door
open by telling the rich young ruler to "sell what he had, to give to the poor,
and to come and follow him." Nevertheless, he simply told him to keep the
commandments.
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-38113007-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>dwightopineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03577653118506929331noreply@blogger.com0