The Identity Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Righteousness of the Pharisees

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

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

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

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

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

Hope for the Downtrodden

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

“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. (Machiavellianism anyone? Have we noticed that after thousands of years of Machiavellianism, 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 )

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.

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)

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.

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)

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. Machiavellianism anyone?

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.

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.”

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.

Tradition of the Elders

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.

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 special 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 received and hold, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 tradition of the elders? 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 your 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.

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 and future kingdom issues because he had the capacity to walk such a fine line without breaking the Law.

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 handed down....” (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 Wikipedia was born in Babylon c. 110 BCE, and died 10 CE (Common Era) in Jerusalem. (That would make him 120 years old.)

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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?

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)

Matthew 15:11-20	Mark 7:15-23
11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man;but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (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.)	15 There is nothing 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. (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.)
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? (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.)	18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? (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 katharizon which means “cleansing.” 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 Amplified Bible reads: 19 Since it does not reach and enter his heart but [only his] digestive tract, and so passes on [into the place designed to receive waste]? Thus He was making and declaring all foods [ceremonially] clean [that is, [h]abolishing the ceremonial distinctions of the Levitical Law].)
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. (The last part of verse 20 is really the clincher. Jesus explains: “but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.” 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.)	20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

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.

 

Was Hillel right?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

“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.

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, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Deuteronomy 24:1).” C. And the House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his dish, D. “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything.” E. R. Aqiba says, “Even if he found someone else prettier than she, “since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Deuteronomy 24:1).” (Neusner, 1987)

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.

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.

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.

 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.”

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 and 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).

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 under the Law). (Romans 7:1, Galatians 4:4)

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.

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.

 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)

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?

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.” 

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?)

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?