This year we have covered the first seventeen chapters of The Gospel According To Matthew.
Two weeks ago, we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Last week we looked at a complex confrontation between the Pharisees and Jesus in Matthew 19. In the previous post, we covered Matthew 19:16-26. Here is the summary:
Jesus was confronted by a rich man. Jesus' handling of the confrontation resulted in Doctrine that would help bring about God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven.
However, the church's incorrect interpretation of these verses today results in people HINDERING God's Will!
Today, we will conclude Matthew chapter 19...
MATTHEW 19:27-30
"27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have?"
(The previous post ended with the rich man NOT being willing to give up his PHYSICAL possessions and NOT being willing to humble himself. Peter, in response to Jesus' comments about the rich man, stated the disciples had given up all PHYSICAL possessions and humbled themselves. Then Peter asked what they will HAVE.)
"28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
(This is Jesus' response to the disciples ONLY. This response was consistent with the following passage from Revelation 4: "4 And round about the throne were four and twenty thrones: and upon the thrones I saw four and twenty elders sitting, arrayed in white garments; and on their heads crowns of gold." Twelve thrones were for the Old Testament leaders of the twelve tribes of Israel, who will judge the twelve tribes...and twelve thrones were for the New Testament disciples who would also judge the twelve tribes.)
"29 And every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life."
(Here is the same story according to Luke:
"25 For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they that heard it said, Then who can be saved?
27 But he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
28 And Peter said, Lo, we have left our own, and followed thee.
29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
30 who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life. Luke 18:25-30)
(This is another HARD SAYING from the Bible. That is, a verse that most people don't realize is in the Bible...or don't want the verse to be in the Bible because it opposes their man-made doctrine.)
(Contrary to today's man-made doctrine, not only does God condone instances of a man leaving his wife and children, God GIVES BOTH Reward and Salvation when it is done!)
(By the way, in the original version of "Pilgrim's Progress", Bunyan's main character quotes this passage at the beginning of the story when he leaves his wife and children. In the modern version by Moody in Today's English, this passage is REMOVED!)
(In today's "Christian" culture, pastors and "Christians" are quick to contradict the Bible by saying, "God would NEVER tell a man to leave his wife and children". Again, Jesus said God would give the person Reward and Salvation for doing just that. Taking into account Matthew chapters 18 and 19, this HARD SAYING only makes sense if the wife and children are NOT Believers. However, I have personally encountered pastors and "Christians" who state it is wrong for a man to leave his wife and children when they are NOT Believers. Again, another man-made doctrine hindering God's Will from occurring on earth as it is in Heaven.)
"30 But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last."
(This verse actually leads into the next chapter...so we will address it tomorrow.)
KEY DOCTRINE SUMMARY
We have completed Matthew chapter 19. Here is a summary of the key doctrine in Matthew 18 and 19:
1. The greatest in the kingdom are those who are humble and completely conscious.
2. This can only be done with Fellowship with God and Fellowship with those who are in Fellowship with God.
3. There is Reward for people who give to those bringing about God's Will.
4. People who cause others to stumble is the same as OPPOSING God...which brings judgment
5. We OUGHT to remove from community Unbelievers posing as Believers because they make the entire body Unprofitable.
6. God's Will is NO ONE should go to hell.
7. Jesus gave us a confrontation Process:
-We OUGHT to confront Believers and immediately forgive unbelievers.
-People must HEAR us or they are not believers.
-Confrontation is done with Questions and If/Then's
-Know difference between First Dimensional Sin and Second Dimensional Sin.
-Witnesses are brought to observe the response to the First Dimensional Sin
-The confrontation is done in front of the church (community)
-When the person is removed, people in church OUGHT reach out to person.
8. It is our responsibility to make the physical line up with the spiritual.
9. Forgive a believer an unlimited number of times EACH TIME he confesses and repents.
10. Know God's Doctrines of: Marriage, Divorce, and Putting Away.
11. Understand the difference between Salvation and Reward.
12. Humble yourself and unburden yourself of physical possessions.
SUMMARY
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
DOING the doctrines Jesus presented above would generate value that would allow God's Will to occur on earth as it is in Heaven.
DOING the OPPOSITE of the doctrine Jesus presented would hinder God's ability to bring about His Will on earth as it is in Heaven.
We have seen HOW/WHY most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19: people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. The SAME thing occurred during Jesus' time!
In Matthew 18, Jesus presented a confrontation process that would result in Profitability. (We saw Bunyan give a practical application of this process.) In Matthew 19, we saw the Pharisees do the OPPOSITE of this confrontation process...and the result was Unprofitability. THAT interaction PROVED the Pharisees were NOT Believers...and anyone who follows the Pharisee's example today PROVES they are NOT Believers! Let's try to clear up the confusion was see today...
God brings about His Will THROUGH people who have enough value. Also, God can ONLY access the doctrine that is in the individual.
It is God ALONE that DOES everything Good.
However, we can HINDER God's ability to bring about His Will on earth as it is in Heaven. There are two popular ways to do this:
1. We can choose to believe man-made doctrine based on tradition instead of Biblical doctrine.
2. We can choose to hinder GRACE by being proud and NOT humble.
This is the ONLY explanation that credits God and makes it our responsibility.
Today, the church believes there are ONLY two possible explanations because they don't understand that CREDIT and RESPONSIBILITY are two SEPARATE concepts. People don't have Resolution between CREDIT and RESPONSIBILITY. Here are the two options for these "lumpers":
1. Man gets the credit and man is responsible. (This is Humanism.)
2. God gets the credit and God is responsible. (This is Calvinism and the belief of most of today's churches.)
Humanism is contradictory because Man can't create in the Long Term...man does NOT deserve the credit.
Calvinism and most of today's churches are contradictory because if God is responsible, the church shouldn't judge or hold people responsible. In fact, if a church believes God is responsible, then they shouldn't teach ANYTHING...otherwise they are hypocrites...and hypocrites don't go to Heaven.
If a church believes there is NOTHING good in a person, then they can't hold the person responsible for taking ANY action towards Good...because THAT would PROVE there is something "good" in the individual. In the end, Calvinism and most of today's churches make God responsible for who is saved and who goes to hell...which is the same as blaming God and justifying ourselves...which is actually MORE humanistic than Humanism! Humanism BLATANTLY states people are greater than God. This is a SAY. Calvinists think they can trick people and God...which is a DO.
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 repeatedly showed us God gets the credit and man is responsible for NOT hindering God's Will...man is responsible for getting his flesh out of the way so God can divinely influence his heart and have it reflected in his life.
We aren't seeing God's Will done on earth as it is in Heaven because we are hindering God by doing the OPPOSITE of the doctrine presented in Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
God DOES everything Good...and we are responsible for NOT hindering God.
This is Biblical GRACE.
Next Post
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Matthew 19:16-26
This year we have covered the first seventeen chapters of The Gospel According To Matthew.
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
Two weeks ago, we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Last week we looked at a complex confrontation between the Pharisees and Jesus in Matthew 19. In the previous post, we covered Matthew 19:10-15. Here is the summary:
Matthew 19:3-15 documented a complex confrontation between the Pharisees and Jesus. The confrontation concerned doctrine already covered in Jesus' Premiere Teaching.
Bunyan showed us a Profitable confrontation that followed Matthew 18:15-17. We ought to confront people claiming to be Believers by asking them a question concerning doctrine and focusing on definitions. Where they contradict the Bible, we ought to point it out. If they get upset and make excuses for ending the discussion, they are proving they are not a Believer. This confrontation is a key to helping the church doing its part to bring about God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven. Failing to confront people in this manner is hindering God's Will!
Matthew 19:3-15 showed an Unprofitable confrontation. It motivated the Pharisees to destroy Jesus.
Yesterday's post completed a Feedback Loop that began with Matthew 18:1-4. Jesus stated the kingdom of heaven belonged to the little children...
MATTHEW 19:16-26
"16 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments."
(Another confrontation! This one is NOT by a Pharisee trying to trap Jesus. It is more like Bunyan's confrontation. However, there are two subtle points that are lost with the ASV's presentation of this passage. Here's Young's Literal Translation of these two verses:
"16 And lo, one having come near, said to him, `Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have life age-during?'
17 And he said to him, `Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One -- God; but if thou dost will to enter into the life, keep the commands.'")
(The confronter called Jesus "Good teacher". First, EVERYONE called Jesus "Teacher (Rabbi)"...even people who did NOT like Jesus. Jesus was a Rabbi...a Teacher.)
(Second, the confronter called Jesus "Good" and Jesus stated ONLY God is "Good". What does this mean? What is your definition of "Good" and "Evil". I am continually amazed at "Christians" who use the words "good" and "evil", yet can't define them! This is Doctrine!)
(As we saw during the Roman Series:
-"Good" means it creates...something minimal was created.
-"Perfect" means that maximum profitability was attained...nothing more could have been created.
-"Pleasing" is in between.)
(Think about it this way...if God tells you to plant 100 seeds, you obey but only plant 30 seeds, are you in God's Will?)
(You really only have two responses:
1) No - then you are stating that you are out of God's Will whenever you aren't perfect.
2) Yes, but you aren't in His Complete (or Perfect) Will - you can be in God's Will even when you aren't perfect.)
(Look at the parables Jesus told. There's usually three levels of profitability: 30 fold, 60 fold, 100 fold. There isn't anything greater than "100 fold". I believe 100 fold is perfect. Anything from 1 fold and above is good...and pleasing is somewhere in between. (We have already addressed this point during this Series in Matthew 13. Also, remember Romans 8? God working all things to "good" would mean that He could take your avoiding planting any of the 100 seeds and make an opportunity to at least plant 1 seed.) If you can show me where this is wrong, I will listen gratefully.)
(Jesus stated that ONLY God was able to create in the Long Term. This statement from Jesus was consistent with what Jesus said in John 8:28! "28 Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things." The secret to Jesus' successfully accomplishing His mission on earth was to let God do EVERYTHING through Him. This is GRACE. Jesus constantly pointed people towards God...NOT Himself.)
(The confronter asked Jesus how he could attain Salvation. Remember, this confrontation took place during the dispensation of the Law. So, the answer was to do the commandments...which is what Jesus answered.)
"18 He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
(The confronter then asked Jesus which commandments ought he to keep. Jesus gave several examples.)
"20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet?"
(The confronter stated he had done ALL of these. The confronter was a Believer! Then the confronter asked what he lacked. Some people interpret this as meaning the confronter was NOT a Believer...that he didn't feel satisfied he was saved. ACTUALLY, the verse stated he was a Believer and then he introduced a new topic: perfection. In fact, Jesus understood this and THAT was exactly how He responded...)
"21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and..."
(What is the rest of the verse? Take a moment to complete the verse out loud.)
(I have partially quoted this verse and asked over 100 pastors, teachers, and "Christians" to complete this verse. ONLY two people have ever done this successfully! I have even seen television ministers misquote this passage...and then display the passage as a television graphic with the same incorrect presentation!)
(Was this your answer? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and...come, follow me.)
(Here's the entire verse...)
"21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."
(Jesus told the confronter to sell all that he had, give it to the poor, and then he would have treasure in Heaven. This is Spiritual Value. This is Reward. THEN, separately, Jesus told him to come and follow Him.)
(The confronter's first question dealt with Salvation. The confronter's Question about "lack" dealt with Reward. People who don't know the difference between Salvation and Reward interpret this story incorrectly.)
(Most people omit the treasure in Heaven portion. They present a Jesus who stated the confronter ought to give and get nothing in return. They present a "Jesus" who was a Begger. A "Jesus" who was NOT moral. A "Jesus" that didn't give a Reason and a Value when He made a request.)
(Actually, Jesus was the Perfect Leader. He ALWAYS gave a Reason and a Value when He made a request.)
(Selling his PHYSICAL possessions and giving them to the poor would result in SPIRITUAL value...which is what we need to bring about God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven! Then the request to follow Jesus was an opportunity to do Offensive Spiritual Warfare to bring about God's Will...and gain even more Reward! Remember, in the Bible, EVERY person who did successful Offensive Spiritual Warfare did NOT have PHYSICAL wealth. They did NOT have "cares of the world"!)
(Jesus offered the confronter the opportunity to get Reward AND further God's Will! What was his response?)
"22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions."
(This confrontation ended with the confronter walking away sorrowful. WHY? Because he had great PHYSICAL possessions. He had cares of the world!)
"23 And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
(This next point has been well taught and there are many resources to get the details. Here is a quick explanation...)
(The "needle's eye" was a narrow passage through the wall surrounding Jerusalem. The ONLY way for a camel to get through this narrow passage was to unburden itself of its PHYSICAL cargo AND kneel.)
(Jesus stated it was easier for the camel to get through this narrow passage than for a rich man because the camel would rid itself of its PHYSICAL possessions and humble itself...the rich man is unable to do either of these things!)
"25 And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
(Again, the disciples concluded the confrontation by asking Jesus a Question because they didn't understand. Is it any wonder we are unable to understand these passages and apply them correctly if the disciples didn't understand the message?)
(Notice, the ending of this passage implied the rich man was now NOT a Believer! WHY? He didn't handle Jesus' confrontation well. The rich man committed Second Dimensional Sin! The confronter made a request to look past Salvation to Reward. Jesus told him how to get Reward...and the rich man then rejected Jesus. The rich man was hypocritical by not following through on something he asked for! Remember, hypocrites don't make it to Heaven.)
(Hopefully, the intent was the same as the end of Bunyan's confrontation: help the person go COLD now so they have plenty of time to Repent and go HOT later.)
SUMMARY
Jesus was confronted by a rich man. Jesus' handling of the confrontation resulted in Doctrine that would help bring about God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven.
However, the church's incorrect interpretation of these verses today results in people HINDERING God's Will!
Tomorrow, we will conclude Matthew chapter 19...
Next Post
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
Two weeks ago, we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Last week we looked at a complex confrontation between the Pharisees and Jesus in Matthew 19. In the previous post, we covered Matthew 19:10-15. Here is the summary:
Matthew 19:3-15 documented a complex confrontation between the Pharisees and Jesus. The confrontation concerned doctrine already covered in Jesus' Premiere Teaching.
Bunyan showed us a Profitable confrontation that followed Matthew 18:15-17. We ought to confront people claiming to be Believers by asking them a question concerning doctrine and focusing on definitions. Where they contradict the Bible, we ought to point it out. If they get upset and make excuses for ending the discussion, they are proving they are not a Believer. This confrontation is a key to helping the church doing its part to bring about God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven. Failing to confront people in this manner is hindering God's Will!
Matthew 19:3-15 showed an Unprofitable confrontation. It motivated the Pharisees to destroy Jesus.
Yesterday's post completed a Feedback Loop that began with Matthew 18:1-4. Jesus stated the kingdom of heaven belonged to the little children...
MATTHEW 19:16-26
"16 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments."
(Another confrontation! This one is NOT by a Pharisee trying to trap Jesus. It is more like Bunyan's confrontation. However, there are two subtle points that are lost with the ASV's presentation of this passage. Here's Young's Literal Translation of these two verses:
"16 And lo, one having come near, said to him, `Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have life age-during?'
17 And he said to him, `Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One -- God; but if thou dost will to enter into the life, keep the commands.'")
(The confronter called Jesus "Good teacher". First, EVERYONE called Jesus "Teacher (Rabbi)"...even people who did NOT like Jesus. Jesus was a Rabbi...a Teacher.)
(Second, the confronter called Jesus "Good" and Jesus stated ONLY God is "Good". What does this mean? What is your definition of "Good" and "Evil". I am continually amazed at "Christians" who use the words "good" and "evil", yet can't define them! This is Doctrine!)
(As we saw during the Roman Series:
-"Good" means it creates...something minimal was created.
-"Perfect" means that maximum profitability was attained...nothing more could have been created.
-"Pleasing" is in between.)
(Think about it this way...if God tells you to plant 100 seeds, you obey but only plant 30 seeds, are you in God's Will?)
(You really only have two responses:
1) No - then you are stating that you are out of God's Will whenever you aren't perfect.
2) Yes, but you aren't in His Complete (or Perfect) Will - you can be in God's Will even when you aren't perfect.)
(Look at the parables Jesus told. There's usually three levels of profitability: 30 fold, 60 fold, 100 fold. There isn't anything greater than "100 fold". I believe 100 fold is perfect. Anything from 1 fold and above is good...and pleasing is somewhere in between. (We have already addressed this point during this Series in Matthew 13. Also, remember Romans 8? God working all things to "good" would mean that He could take your avoiding planting any of the 100 seeds and make an opportunity to at least plant 1 seed.) If you can show me where this is wrong, I will listen gratefully.)
(Jesus stated that ONLY God was able to create in the Long Term. This statement from Jesus was consistent with what Jesus said in John 8:28! "28 Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things." The secret to Jesus' successfully accomplishing His mission on earth was to let God do EVERYTHING through Him. This is GRACE. Jesus constantly pointed people towards God...NOT Himself.)
(The confronter asked Jesus how he could attain Salvation. Remember, this confrontation took place during the dispensation of the Law. So, the answer was to do the commandments...which is what Jesus answered.)
"18 He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
(The confronter then asked Jesus which commandments ought he to keep. Jesus gave several examples.)
"20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet?"
(The confronter stated he had done ALL of these. The confronter was a Believer! Then the confronter asked what he lacked. Some people interpret this as meaning the confronter was NOT a Believer...that he didn't feel satisfied he was saved. ACTUALLY, the verse stated he was a Believer and then he introduced a new topic: perfection. In fact, Jesus understood this and THAT was exactly how He responded...)
"21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and..."
(What is the rest of the verse? Take a moment to complete the verse out loud.)
(I have partially quoted this verse and asked over 100 pastors, teachers, and "Christians" to complete this verse. ONLY two people have ever done this successfully! I have even seen television ministers misquote this passage...and then display the passage as a television graphic with the same incorrect presentation!)
(Was this your answer? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and...come, follow me.)
(Here's the entire verse...)
"21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."
(Jesus told the confronter to sell all that he had, give it to the poor, and then he would have treasure in Heaven. This is Spiritual Value. This is Reward. THEN, separately, Jesus told him to come and follow Him.)
(The confronter's first question dealt with Salvation. The confronter's Question about "lack" dealt with Reward. People who don't know the difference between Salvation and Reward interpret this story incorrectly.)
(Most people omit the treasure in Heaven portion. They present a Jesus who stated the confronter ought to give and get nothing in return. They present a "Jesus" who was a Begger. A "Jesus" who was NOT moral. A "Jesus" that didn't give a Reason and a Value when He made a request.)
(Actually, Jesus was the Perfect Leader. He ALWAYS gave a Reason and a Value when He made a request.)
(Selling his PHYSICAL possessions and giving them to the poor would result in SPIRITUAL value...which is what we need to bring about God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven! Then the request to follow Jesus was an opportunity to do Offensive Spiritual Warfare to bring about God's Will...and gain even more Reward! Remember, in the Bible, EVERY person who did successful Offensive Spiritual Warfare did NOT have PHYSICAL wealth. They did NOT have "cares of the world"!)
(Jesus offered the confronter the opportunity to get Reward AND further God's Will! What was his response?)
"22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions."
(This confrontation ended with the confronter walking away sorrowful. WHY? Because he had great PHYSICAL possessions. He had cares of the world!)
"23 And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
(This next point has been well taught and there are many resources to get the details. Here is a quick explanation...)
(The "needle's eye" was a narrow passage through the wall surrounding Jerusalem. The ONLY way for a camel to get through this narrow passage was to unburden itself of its PHYSICAL cargo AND kneel.)
(Jesus stated it was easier for the camel to get through this narrow passage than for a rich man because the camel would rid itself of its PHYSICAL possessions and humble itself...the rich man is unable to do either of these things!)
"25 And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
(Again, the disciples concluded the confrontation by asking Jesus a Question because they didn't understand. Is it any wonder we are unable to understand these passages and apply them correctly if the disciples didn't understand the message?)
(Notice, the ending of this passage implied the rich man was now NOT a Believer! WHY? He didn't handle Jesus' confrontation well. The rich man committed Second Dimensional Sin! The confronter made a request to look past Salvation to Reward. Jesus told him how to get Reward...and the rich man then rejected Jesus. The rich man was hypocritical by not following through on something he asked for! Remember, hypocrites don't make it to Heaven.)
(Hopefully, the intent was the same as the end of Bunyan's confrontation: help the person go COLD now so they have plenty of time to Repent and go HOT later.)
SUMMARY
Jesus was confronted by a rich man. Jesus' handling of the confrontation resulted in Doctrine that would help bring about God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven.
However, the church's incorrect interpretation of these verses today results in people HINDERING God's Will!
Tomorrow, we will conclude Matthew chapter 19...
Next Post
Monday, June 28, 2010
Matthew 19:10-15
This year we have covered the first seventeen chapters of The Gospel According To Matthew.
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
Two weeks ago, we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Last week we looked at a complex confrontation between the Pharisees and Jesus in Matthew 19. In the previous post, we covered Matthew 19:8-9. Here is the summary:
Jesus answered the Pharisees' question by directly answering BOTH "When is it wrong to Put Away?" and "When is it right to Put Away?"...which would answer the Pharisees original question: Is it LAWFUL for a husband to PUT AWAY his wife for EVERY CAUSE?
Jesus first said whoever Puts his wife Away and marries another commits adultery unless he Put her Away for fornication. This is the Right HOW/WHY to Put Away (for fornication) AND the Wrong HOW/WHY (every way other than fornication). Fornication proves she is NOT a Believer. If the husband Put her Away for ANY reason other than Unbelief, then God would still consider the husband married to the Believing wife...and his next "marriage" is ACTUALLY adultery in God's Eyes! Notice, there is NOTHING wrong with Putting Away UNTIL he marries another woman...THEN it is adultery. So, the husband could Put her Away for ANY reason...he just couldn't get "married" (have covenantal sexual intercourse) without THAT being a sin.
Jesus then said whoever marries the woman that was Put Away commits adultery. This also addresses the Right and Wrong HOW/WHY to deal with Putting Away. Putting Away OUGHT to remove the woman from community. A man who marries a woman who is Put Away is marrying a woman outside the community of the Law (which brings her into community)…and the Law would consider this adultery because she is in community and not divorced. Also, the Believing woman being Put Away isn't a sinful situation involving the LAW...until she gets "married" (covenantal sexual intercourse) to another man. Then THAT man is committing adultery because God still considers the Believing wife to be married to the husband who Put her Away.
Jesus used PERFECT THINKING to successfully answer the Pharisees' question that was intended to trap Him.
Since it was a Friday post, I highly recommended reviewing the following links:
Divorce and Putting Away Background
Mark 10:11-12
I Corinthians 7:1-17
Today, we will see the response and conclude our comparison with Bunyan's confrontation in "Pilgrim's Progress".
MATTHEW 19:10-15
"10 The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.
11 But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.
12 For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence."
As it relates to Bunyan's confrontation: There is no mention of a response from the Pharisees. No mention of name calling. No mention of Jesus walking away.
Jesus took questions and people brought little children TO Jesus. In fact, the passage ends the way Matthew 18 began!
Remember Matthew 18:1-4?
"1 In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them,
3 and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
So, despite EVERYTHING we have covered in Matthew 18 and 19, the disciples STILL rebuked (prevented) little children from coming to Jesus! In fact, the entirety of this passage implies the disciples did NOT understand the events of these two chapters! Why are we surprised when we find out most "Christians" don't understand Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
The disciples had questions for Jesus about the doctrine regarding Putting Away. Jesus' response was the same as Paul's response in I Corinthians 7:1-17! To those who are gifted to marry, they ought to marry. Those who aren't gifted to marry, shouldn't marry.
Jesus went further than Paul when He stated God MADE certain people to be gifted to marry and others not to marry. This means, SPIRITUALLY God has determined who ought to marry...and we should bring the PHYSICAL into agreement with the SPIRITUAL...which was the correct interpretation of Matthew 18:18...which concerned binding and loosing on earth what is already bound and loosed in Heaven.
EVERY verse in Matthew 18 and 19 is critical to the understanding of these two critical chapters. EVERY verse needs to be interpreted in a correct and non-contradictory manner in order to understand God's doctrine. The sign someone is interpreting these chapters according to man-made doctrine is the verses contradict each other.
When we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress", we identified twelve aspects to Bunyan's confrontation. It turns out, there is only one similarity between Bunyan's Profitable confrontation and the Pharisees' Unprofitable confrontation:
-The confrontation began with a question on a serious topic
The rest of the eleven aspects are NOT similar. Here are the aspects of the Pharisees' confrontation (with the differences from Bunyan's confrontation in capital letters):
-The UNBELIEVER initiated the confrontation
-The confrontation was with a person claiming to be a Believer AND WAS
-The CONFRONTED focused on specific words/definitions
-The confronter was attempting to TRAP THE Believer
-The confronted person KNEW the confronter WAS attempting to trap him
-The CONFRONTED corrects the CONFRONTER
-The confronted person DID NOT respond by stating: I didn't expect the discussion to go this way and I'm not ready to give an answer.
-The confronted person DID NOT state: this is a private matter, I don't have to answer because nothing requires me to answer unless you are a teacher of Christian doctrine...and even if you were, I'd still not answer you because you aren't the judge of me.
-The CONFRONTER asks the CONFRONTED why.
-The confronted person DID NOT call the confronter names
-The confronted person DID NOT walk away
SUMMARY
MATTHEW 19:3-15 documented a complex confrontation between the Pharisees and Jesus. The confrontation concerned doctrine already covered in Jesus' Premiere Teaching.
Bunyan showed us a Profitable confrontation that followed Matthew 18:15-17. We ought to confront people claiming to be Believers by asking them a question concerning doctrine and focusing on definitions. Where they contradict the Bible, we ought to point it out. If they get upset and make excuses for ending the discussion, they are proving they are not a Believer. This confrontation is a key to helping the church doing its part to bring about God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven. Failing to confront people in this manner is hindering God's Will!
Matthew 19:3-15 showed an Unprofitable confrontation. It motivated the Pharisees to destroy Jesus.
Today's post completed a Feedback Loop that began with Matthew 18:1-4. Jesus stated the kingdom of heaven belonged to the little children...
Next Post
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
Two weeks ago, we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Last week we looked at a complex confrontation between the Pharisees and Jesus in Matthew 19. In the previous post, we covered Matthew 19:8-9. Here is the summary:
Jesus answered the Pharisees' question by directly answering BOTH "When is it wrong to Put Away?" and "When is it right to Put Away?"...which would answer the Pharisees original question: Is it LAWFUL for a husband to PUT AWAY his wife for EVERY CAUSE?
Jesus first said whoever Puts his wife Away and marries another commits adultery unless he Put her Away for fornication. This is the Right HOW/WHY to Put Away (for fornication) AND the Wrong HOW/WHY (every way other than fornication). Fornication proves she is NOT a Believer. If the husband Put her Away for ANY reason other than Unbelief, then God would still consider the husband married to the Believing wife...and his next "marriage" is ACTUALLY adultery in God's Eyes! Notice, there is NOTHING wrong with Putting Away UNTIL he marries another woman...THEN it is adultery. So, the husband could Put her Away for ANY reason...he just couldn't get "married" (have covenantal sexual intercourse) without THAT being a sin.
Jesus then said whoever marries the woman that was Put Away commits adultery. This also addresses the Right and Wrong HOW/WHY to deal with Putting Away. Putting Away OUGHT to remove the woman from community. A man who marries a woman who is Put Away is marrying a woman outside the community of the Law (which brings her into community)…and the Law would consider this adultery because she is in community and not divorced. Also, the Believing woman being Put Away isn't a sinful situation involving the LAW...until she gets "married" (covenantal sexual intercourse) to another man. Then THAT man is committing adultery because God still considers the Believing wife to be married to the husband who Put her Away.
Jesus used PERFECT THINKING to successfully answer the Pharisees' question that was intended to trap Him.
Since it was a Friday post, I highly recommended reviewing the following links:
Divorce and Putting Away Background
Mark 10:11-12
I Corinthians 7:1-17
Today, we will see the response and conclude our comparison with Bunyan's confrontation in "Pilgrim's Progress".
MATTHEW 19:10-15
"10 The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.
11 But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.
12 For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence."
As it relates to Bunyan's confrontation: There is no mention of a response from the Pharisees. No mention of name calling. No mention of Jesus walking away.
Jesus took questions and people brought little children TO Jesus. In fact, the passage ends the way Matthew 18 began!
Remember Matthew 18:1-4?
"1 In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them,
3 and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
So, despite EVERYTHING we have covered in Matthew 18 and 19, the disciples STILL rebuked (prevented) little children from coming to Jesus! In fact, the entirety of this passage implies the disciples did NOT understand the events of these two chapters! Why are we surprised when we find out most "Christians" don't understand Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
The disciples had questions for Jesus about the doctrine regarding Putting Away. Jesus' response was the same as Paul's response in I Corinthians 7:1-17! To those who are gifted to marry, they ought to marry. Those who aren't gifted to marry, shouldn't marry.
Jesus went further than Paul when He stated God MADE certain people to be gifted to marry and others not to marry. This means, SPIRITUALLY God has determined who ought to marry...and we should bring the PHYSICAL into agreement with the SPIRITUAL...which was the correct interpretation of Matthew 18:18...which concerned binding and loosing on earth what is already bound and loosed in Heaven.
EVERY verse in Matthew 18 and 19 is critical to the understanding of these two critical chapters. EVERY verse needs to be interpreted in a correct and non-contradictory manner in order to understand God's doctrine. The sign someone is interpreting these chapters according to man-made doctrine is the verses contradict each other.
When we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress", we identified twelve aspects to Bunyan's confrontation. It turns out, there is only one similarity between Bunyan's Profitable confrontation and the Pharisees' Unprofitable confrontation:
-The confrontation began with a question on a serious topic
The rest of the eleven aspects are NOT similar. Here are the aspects of the Pharisees' confrontation (with the differences from Bunyan's confrontation in capital letters):
-The UNBELIEVER initiated the confrontation
-The confrontation was with a person claiming to be a Believer AND WAS
-The CONFRONTED focused on specific words/definitions
-The confronter was attempting to TRAP THE Believer
-The confronted person KNEW the confronter WAS attempting to trap him
-The CONFRONTED corrects the CONFRONTER
-The confronted person DID NOT respond by stating: I didn't expect the discussion to go this way and I'm not ready to give an answer.
-The confronted person DID NOT state: this is a private matter, I don't have to answer because nothing requires me to answer unless you are a teacher of Christian doctrine...and even if you were, I'd still not answer you because you aren't the judge of me.
-The CONFRONTER asks the CONFRONTED why.
-The confronted person DID NOT call the confronter names
-The confronted person DID NOT walk away
SUMMARY
MATTHEW 19:3-15 documented a complex confrontation between the Pharisees and Jesus. The confrontation concerned doctrine already covered in Jesus' Premiere Teaching.
Bunyan showed us a Profitable confrontation that followed Matthew 18:15-17. We ought to confront people claiming to be Believers by asking them a question concerning doctrine and focusing on definitions. Where they contradict the Bible, we ought to point it out. If they get upset and make excuses for ending the discussion, they are proving they are not a Believer. This confrontation is a key to helping the church doing its part to bring about God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven. Failing to confront people in this manner is hindering God's Will!
Matthew 19:3-15 showed an Unprofitable confrontation. It motivated the Pharisees to destroy Jesus.
Today's post completed a Feedback Loop that began with Matthew 18:1-4. Jesus stated the kingdom of heaven belonged to the little children...
Next Post
Friday, June 25, 2010
Matthew 19:8-9
This year we have covered the first seventeen chapters of The Gospel According To Matthew.
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
Last week we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". This week we began Matthew 19. In the previous post, we covered Matthew 19:7. Here is the summary:
Jesus talked about OUGHT and the Pharisees acted like they were talking about OUGHT, but really spoke about IS. Again, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. Jesus couldn’t answer their first question with a statement without being wrong because the answer was NOT in the Law.
Jesus’ response caused the Pharisees to ask a question about the Law. This second question was posed like Jesus had a contradiction when He didn’t actually have one. However, the key to this question from the Pharisees was they asked WHY. The Pharisees' first Question was a WHAT.
They wanted to know WHY Moses gave them the command to Divorce and the command to Put Away if God didn’t intend for it to happen. They were really asking a question about God’s Will: WHY are we allowed to do something against God’s Will?
Can Jesus now answer this question?
MATTHEW 19:8-9
"8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery."
The first observation is MOST important in understanding Jesus' Doctrine...
NOTICE: Jesus talked about PUTTING AWAY.
The word for every usage we've seen in Matthew 19 that mentioned PUTTING AWAY is:
#630 apoluo – "to free fully, relieve...from #575 (apo – off, away) and #3089 (luo – loosen)"
In Matthew 19:7, the word "divorcement" was used, which is:
#647 apostasion – "something separative, specifically writing of divorcement from #868" (aphistemi – to remove, instigate to revolt)
Putting Away: apoluo is passive and without conflict
Divorce: apostasion is aggressive and violent
Confusing these words leads to two VERY DIFFERENT MEANINGS for Jesus' Doctrine!
First, let's look at the correct meaning: Jesus stated PUTTING AWAY...
JESUS SAID PUTTING AWAY
The Pharisees wanted to know WHY Moses gave them the command to Divorce and the command to Put Away if God didn’t intend for it to happen. They were really asking a question about God’s Will: WHY are we allowed to do something against God’s Will? The answer to that is God doesn’t force His Will on us…God’s Will doesn’t always happen and that is because of the hardness of our hearts. God's Will does NOT happen on earth as it does in Heaven regardless of what we do.
So, "sovereignty" (God's ability to make His Will occur regardless of what we do) is NOT a Biblical Doctrine!
Remember, the Law did not command us to get married. It is our choice to marry. Although Marriage can be a blessing, it isn’t guaranteed. If Marriage isn’t Profitable, that is our choice. In "Modeling God's Wills" we look at how to determine if it is possible for the Marriage to be Profitable...and HOW to make it Profitable. In the previous post, we saw that God does NOT join EVERY couple. THAT belief would be justifying ourselves. It would be pride to think that God HAS to bless the bad choices we make.
However, if it is NOT possible for the Marriage to be Profitable, God wouldn’t want a person to live in Unprofitability, so God provided for Divorce and Putting Away. There is a huge implication here that most people miss…
Actually, this passage proves Divorce and Putting Away are blessings! Look at it this way: An Unprofitable Marriage is like a sickness. However, God provides a cure: Divorce and Putting Away. Does this make Divorce and Putting Away sins? Is medicine a sin or a blessing? We wouldn’t need medicine if we weren’t sick. However, our sickness doesn’t make the medicine bad.
Let’s take this to an extreme: Is Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross bad? Is Jesus death on the cross a sin? The only reason He did it is because we needed it because of our “sickness”. Stating that Divorce and Putting Away are “bad” or "a sin" is the same as stating Jesus’ death on the cross is “bad” or "a sin". Be careful…Jesus said God provided a solution (Divorce and Putting Away) because we caused a problem (hardness of our hearts).
Again, Jesus turned the answer back on the confronters and talked about OUGHT. (Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.) The WHY has to do with IS…people don’t have soft hearts and take direction from God. Moses provided a way to deal with the fact people have hard hearts. Jesus had now answered the first question the Pharisees asked without falling into their trap!
Pharisees’ First Question: Does the LAW say a man can PUT AWAY Away his wife for EVERY CAUSE?
Jesus’ Answer: God didn’t get specific about Putting Away because He never wanted that to happen. The only reason God even directed Moses concerning the doctrine of Putting Away was because people have hard hearts.
Jesus didn’t rush into every question…even when He did have the answer, He took the time to make sure people: wanted an answer (kept asking) and completely understood the WHY. In fact, Jesus was not done answering the Pharisees question. However, instead of answering EVERY CAUSE directly, Jesus turned His attention to directly answering BOTH "When is it wrong to Put Away?" and "When is it right to Put Away?"...which would answer the Pharisees original question.
Remember, we've covered the differences between Divorce and Putting Away.
Divorce is the way for believers to end their marriage covenant, while remaining in covenant through "the greater community".
Putting away is the way for a believer to end their marriage covenant AND remove the unbelieving (fornicating) spouse from "the greater community".
In the Old Testament, "the greater community" was Israel.
In the New Testament, "the greater community" is church.
Our culture's "divorce" is actually closer to the Bible's "putting away". The ending of the marriage covenant with one of the spouses being removed from the greater community.
Jesus first said whoever Puts his wife Away and marries another commits adultery unless he Put her Away for fornication. This is the Right HOW/WHY to Put Away (for fornication) AND the Wrong HOW/WHY (every way other than fornication). Fornication proves she is NOT a Believer. If the husband Put her Away for ANY reason other than Unbelief, then God would still consider the husband married to the Believing wife...and his next "marriage" is ACTUALLY adultery in God's Eyes! Notice, there is NOTHING wrong with Putting Away UNTIL he marries another woman...THEN it is adultery. So, the husband could Put her Away for ANY reason...he just couldn't get "married" (have covenantal sexual intercourse) without THAT being a sin.
Jesus then said whoever marries the woman that was Put Away commits adultery. This also addresses the Right and Wrong HOW/WHY to deal with Putting Away. Putting Away OUGHT to remove the woman from community. A man who marries a woman who is Put Away is marrying a woman outside the community of the Law (which brings her into community)…and the Law would consider this adultery because she is in community and not divorced. Also, the Believing woman being Put Away isn't a sinful situation involving the LAW...until she gets "married" (covenantal sexual intercourse) to another man. Then THAT man is committing adultery because God still considers the Believing wife to be married to the husband who Put her Away.
Notice, Jesus’ answer focused on the judgment on the males...current husband and future husband. The original question asked ONLY about a husband Putting Away a wife. Jesus kept His answer focused on this question ALONE. Notice also, He focused the males on the doctrine of Putting Away and Divorce by talking about intercourse. THIS perspective kept the males focused...
I believe Jesus answered this question in this manner to prevent being asked:
Does the Law REQUIRE a man to Put Away his wife if she is not a believer?
Is it lawful for a man NOT to Put Away his wife if she is a fornicator?
HOW would have Jesus answered those questions?
We have seen in the New Testament, Paul had to answer these questions and SPECIFICALLY state his answer was NOT from God! (If you are interested in studying this further, begin at this link: I Corinthians 7:1-17.) Likewise, God could NOT state a LAWFUL Doctrine about Putting Away...and He didn't. Did Moses state a Doctrine according to Moses, just like Paul stated a Doctrine according to Paul?
Before we cover the other possible interpretation of this passage, here is the mention of Putting Away by the LAW:
"13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 and lay shameful things to her charge, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity;
15 then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate;
16 and the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 and, lo, he hath laid shameful things to her charge, saying, I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him;19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel;
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.
23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.
25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter;
27 for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22)
Notice, the man is NOT trying to Divorce the woman. He is trying to prove she is NOT a Believer because she was previously married (no tokens) and does NOT have a Bill of Divorcement. When he is right, she is KILLED! When he is wrong, he is NOT allowed to ever PUT her AWAY...but he could still Divorce her.
Now, here is the incorrect interpretation of this passage: Jesus stated Divorce...
JESUS SAID DIVORCE?
If Jesus stated whoever Divorces his wife, except for fornication (Unbelief), is an adulterer...then Jesus would be contradicting the LAW! Jesus would be contradicting Deuteronomy 24:1-4!!!! Jesus would be proving He was NOT the Son of God because He would be stating He doesn't know the LAW or that doing the LAW results in sin!!!!
Unfortunately, the "Bibles" written since 1960 present a Jesus that was NOT the Son of God. Look for yourself:
New American Standard (Lockman Foundation 1960)
8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
New International Version (International Bible Society 1973)
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
New King James (Thomas Nelson 1982)
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
The Message (Eugene H Peterson 1993)
8-9 Jesus said, "Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hard heartedness, but it is not part of God's original plan. I'm holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery."
New Living Translation (Tyndale Charitable Trust 1996)
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.
9 And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.
English Standard Version (Crossway Bibles 2001)
"8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
I have written to these publishers asking them if they think it is right to publish a book claiming to be the Word of God that presents a Jesus that is NOT the Son of God. The responses, when they do response, have all avoided addressing the issue. In fact, the most popular "Bible" (NIV) claims it is NOT a translation of the Word of God...it is a conceptual presentation.
How many pastors and "believers" get their Doctrine from this conceptual presentation of God's Word that presents a Jesus that is NOT the Son of God?
Do you think referencing a man-made version of God's Word that presents a Jesus that is NOT the Son of God is hindering the church today from doing God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven?
SUMMARY
Jesus answered the Pharisees' question by directly answering BOTH "When is it wrong to Put Away?" and "When is it right to Put Away?"...which would answer the Pharisees original question: Is it LAWFUL for a husband to PUT AWAY his wife for EVERY CAUSE?
Jesus first said whoever Puts his wife Away and marries another commits adultery unless he Put her Away for fornication. This is the Right HOW/WHY to Put Away (for fornication) AND the Wrong HOW/WHY (every way other than fornication). Fornication proves she is NOT a Believer. If the husband Put her Away for ANY reason other than Unbelief, then God would still consider the husband married to the Believing wife...and his next "marriage" is ACTUALLY adultery in God's Eyes! Notice, there is NOTHING wrong with Putting Away UNTIL he marries another woman...THEN it is adultery. So, the husband could Put her Away for ANY reason...he just couldn't get "married" (have covenantal sexual intercourse) without THAT being a sin.
Jesus then said whoever marries the woman that was Put Away commits adultery. This also addresses the Right and Wrong HOW/WHY to deal with Putting Away. Putting Away OUGHT to remove the woman from community. A man who marries a woman who is Put Away is marrying a woman outside the community of the Law (which brings her into community)…and the Law would consider this adultery because she is in community and not divorced. Also, the Believing woman being Put Away isn't a sinful situation involving the LAW...until she gets "married" (covenantal sexual intercourse) to another man. Then THAT man is committing adultery because God still considers the Believing wife to be married to the husband who Put her Away.
Jesus used PERFECT THINKING to successfully answer the Pharisees' question that was intended to trap Him.
On Monday, we will see the response and conclude our comparison with Bunyan's confrontation in "Pilgrim's Progress".
Since this is a Friday post, I highly recommend reviewing the following links:
Divorce and Putting Away Background
Mark 10:11-12
I Corinthians 7:1-17
Next Post
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
Last week we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". This week we began Matthew 19. In the previous post, we covered Matthew 19:7. Here is the summary:
Jesus talked about OUGHT and the Pharisees acted like they were talking about OUGHT, but really spoke about IS. Again, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. Jesus couldn’t answer their first question with a statement without being wrong because the answer was NOT in the Law.
Jesus’ response caused the Pharisees to ask a question about the Law. This second question was posed like Jesus had a contradiction when He didn’t actually have one. However, the key to this question from the Pharisees was they asked WHY. The Pharisees' first Question was a WHAT.
They wanted to know WHY Moses gave them the command to Divorce and the command to Put Away if God didn’t intend for it to happen. They were really asking a question about God’s Will: WHY are we allowed to do something against God’s Will?
Can Jesus now answer this question?
MATTHEW 19:8-9
"8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery."
The first observation is MOST important in understanding Jesus' Doctrine...
NOTICE: Jesus talked about PUTTING AWAY.
The word for every usage we've seen in Matthew 19 that mentioned PUTTING AWAY is:
#630 apoluo – "to free fully, relieve...from #575 (apo – off, away) and #3089 (luo – loosen)"
In Matthew 19:7, the word "divorcement" was used, which is:
#647 apostasion – "something separative, specifically writing of divorcement from #868" (aphistemi – to remove, instigate to revolt)
Putting Away: apoluo is passive and without conflict
Divorce: apostasion is aggressive and violent
Confusing these words leads to two VERY DIFFERENT MEANINGS for Jesus' Doctrine!
First, let's look at the correct meaning: Jesus stated PUTTING AWAY...
JESUS SAID PUTTING AWAY
The Pharisees wanted to know WHY Moses gave them the command to Divorce and the command to Put Away if God didn’t intend for it to happen. They were really asking a question about God’s Will: WHY are we allowed to do something against God’s Will? The answer to that is God doesn’t force His Will on us…God’s Will doesn’t always happen and that is because of the hardness of our hearts. God's Will does NOT happen on earth as it does in Heaven regardless of what we do.
So, "sovereignty" (God's ability to make His Will occur regardless of what we do) is NOT a Biblical Doctrine!
Remember, the Law did not command us to get married. It is our choice to marry. Although Marriage can be a blessing, it isn’t guaranteed. If Marriage isn’t Profitable, that is our choice. In "Modeling God's Wills" we look at how to determine if it is possible for the Marriage to be Profitable...and HOW to make it Profitable. In the previous post, we saw that God does NOT join EVERY couple. THAT belief would be justifying ourselves. It would be pride to think that God HAS to bless the bad choices we make.
However, if it is NOT possible for the Marriage to be Profitable, God wouldn’t want a person to live in Unprofitability, so God provided for Divorce and Putting Away. There is a huge implication here that most people miss…
Actually, this passage proves Divorce and Putting Away are blessings! Look at it this way: An Unprofitable Marriage is like a sickness. However, God provides a cure: Divorce and Putting Away. Does this make Divorce and Putting Away sins? Is medicine a sin or a blessing? We wouldn’t need medicine if we weren’t sick. However, our sickness doesn’t make the medicine bad.
Let’s take this to an extreme: Is Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross bad? Is Jesus death on the cross a sin? The only reason He did it is because we needed it because of our “sickness”. Stating that Divorce and Putting Away are “bad” or "a sin" is the same as stating Jesus’ death on the cross is “bad” or "a sin". Be careful…Jesus said God provided a solution (Divorce and Putting Away) because we caused a problem (hardness of our hearts).
Again, Jesus turned the answer back on the confronters and talked about OUGHT. (Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.) The WHY has to do with IS…people don’t have soft hearts and take direction from God. Moses provided a way to deal with the fact people have hard hearts. Jesus had now answered the first question the Pharisees asked without falling into their trap!
Pharisees’ First Question: Does the LAW say a man can PUT AWAY Away his wife for EVERY CAUSE?
Jesus’ Answer: God didn’t get specific about Putting Away because He never wanted that to happen. The only reason God even directed Moses concerning the doctrine of Putting Away was because people have hard hearts.
Jesus didn’t rush into every question…even when He did have the answer, He took the time to make sure people: wanted an answer (kept asking) and completely understood the WHY. In fact, Jesus was not done answering the Pharisees question. However, instead of answering EVERY CAUSE directly, Jesus turned His attention to directly answering BOTH "When is it wrong to Put Away?" and "When is it right to Put Away?"...which would answer the Pharisees original question.
Remember, we've covered the differences between Divorce and Putting Away.
Divorce is the way for believers to end their marriage covenant, while remaining in covenant through "the greater community".
Putting away is the way for a believer to end their marriage covenant AND remove the unbelieving (fornicating) spouse from "the greater community".
In the Old Testament, "the greater community" was Israel.
In the New Testament, "the greater community" is church.
Our culture's "divorce" is actually closer to the Bible's "putting away". The ending of the marriage covenant with one of the spouses being removed from the greater community.
Jesus first said whoever Puts his wife Away and marries another commits adultery unless he Put her Away for fornication. This is the Right HOW/WHY to Put Away (for fornication) AND the Wrong HOW/WHY (every way other than fornication). Fornication proves she is NOT a Believer. If the husband Put her Away for ANY reason other than Unbelief, then God would still consider the husband married to the Believing wife...and his next "marriage" is ACTUALLY adultery in God's Eyes! Notice, there is NOTHING wrong with Putting Away UNTIL he marries another woman...THEN it is adultery. So, the husband could Put her Away for ANY reason...he just couldn't get "married" (have covenantal sexual intercourse) without THAT being a sin.
Jesus then said whoever marries the woman that was Put Away commits adultery. This also addresses the Right and Wrong HOW/WHY to deal with Putting Away. Putting Away OUGHT to remove the woman from community. A man who marries a woman who is Put Away is marrying a woman outside the community of the Law (which brings her into community)…and the Law would consider this adultery because she is in community and not divorced. Also, the Believing woman being Put Away isn't a sinful situation involving the LAW...until she gets "married" (covenantal sexual intercourse) to another man. Then THAT man is committing adultery because God still considers the Believing wife to be married to the husband who Put her Away.
Notice, Jesus’ answer focused on the judgment on the males...current husband and future husband. The original question asked ONLY about a husband Putting Away a wife. Jesus kept His answer focused on this question ALONE. Notice also, He focused the males on the doctrine of Putting Away and Divorce by talking about intercourse. THIS perspective kept the males focused...
I believe Jesus answered this question in this manner to prevent being asked:
Does the Law REQUIRE a man to Put Away his wife if she is not a believer?
Is it lawful for a man NOT to Put Away his wife if she is a fornicator?
HOW would have Jesus answered those questions?
We have seen in the New Testament, Paul had to answer these questions and SPECIFICALLY state his answer was NOT from God! (If you are interested in studying this further, begin at this link: I Corinthians 7:1-17.) Likewise, God could NOT state a LAWFUL Doctrine about Putting Away...and He didn't. Did Moses state a Doctrine according to Moses, just like Paul stated a Doctrine according to Paul?
Before we cover the other possible interpretation of this passage, here is the mention of Putting Away by the LAW:
"13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 and lay shameful things to her charge, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity;
15 then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate;
16 and the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 and, lo, he hath laid shameful things to her charge, saying, I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him;19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel;
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.
23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.
25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter;
27 for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22)
Notice, the man is NOT trying to Divorce the woman. He is trying to prove she is NOT a Believer because she was previously married (no tokens) and does NOT have a Bill of Divorcement. When he is right, she is KILLED! When he is wrong, he is NOT allowed to ever PUT her AWAY...but he could still Divorce her.
Now, here is the incorrect interpretation of this passage: Jesus stated Divorce...
JESUS SAID DIVORCE?
If Jesus stated whoever Divorces his wife, except for fornication (Unbelief), is an adulterer...then Jesus would be contradicting the LAW! Jesus would be contradicting Deuteronomy 24:1-4!!!! Jesus would be proving He was NOT the Son of God because He would be stating He doesn't know the LAW or that doing the LAW results in sin!!!!
Unfortunately, the "Bibles" written since 1960 present a Jesus that was NOT the Son of God. Look for yourself:
New American Standard (Lockman Foundation 1960)
8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
New International Version (International Bible Society 1973)
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
New King James (Thomas Nelson 1982)
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
The Message (Eugene H Peterson 1993)
8-9 Jesus said, "Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hard heartedness, but it is not part of God's original plan. I'm holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery."
New Living Translation (Tyndale Charitable Trust 1996)
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.
9 And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.
English Standard Version (Crossway Bibles 2001)
"8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
I have written to these publishers asking them if they think it is right to publish a book claiming to be the Word of God that presents a Jesus that is NOT the Son of God. The responses, when they do response, have all avoided addressing the issue. In fact, the most popular "Bible" (NIV) claims it is NOT a translation of the Word of God...it is a conceptual presentation.
How many pastors and "believers" get their Doctrine from this conceptual presentation of God's Word that presents a Jesus that is NOT the Son of God?
Do you think referencing a man-made version of God's Word that presents a Jesus that is NOT the Son of God is hindering the church today from doing God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven?
SUMMARY
Jesus answered the Pharisees' question by directly answering BOTH "When is it wrong to Put Away?" and "When is it right to Put Away?"...which would answer the Pharisees original question: Is it LAWFUL for a husband to PUT AWAY his wife for EVERY CAUSE?
Jesus first said whoever Puts his wife Away and marries another commits adultery unless he Put her Away for fornication. This is the Right HOW/WHY to Put Away (for fornication) AND the Wrong HOW/WHY (every way other than fornication). Fornication proves she is NOT a Believer. If the husband Put her Away for ANY reason other than Unbelief, then God would still consider the husband married to the Believing wife...and his next "marriage" is ACTUALLY adultery in God's Eyes! Notice, there is NOTHING wrong with Putting Away UNTIL he marries another woman...THEN it is adultery. So, the husband could Put her Away for ANY reason...he just couldn't get "married" (have covenantal sexual intercourse) without THAT being a sin.
Jesus then said whoever marries the woman that was Put Away commits adultery. This also addresses the Right and Wrong HOW/WHY to deal with Putting Away. Putting Away OUGHT to remove the woman from community. A man who marries a woman who is Put Away is marrying a woman outside the community of the Law (which brings her into community)…and the Law would consider this adultery because she is in community and not divorced. Also, the Believing woman being Put Away isn't a sinful situation involving the LAW...until she gets "married" (covenantal sexual intercourse) to another man. Then THAT man is committing adultery because God still considers the Believing wife to be married to the husband who Put her Away.
Jesus used PERFECT THINKING to successfully answer the Pharisees' question that was intended to trap Him.
On Monday, we will see the response and conclude our comparison with Bunyan's confrontation in "Pilgrim's Progress".
Since this is a Friday post, I highly recommend reviewing the following links:
Divorce and Putting Away Background
Mark 10:11-12
I Corinthians 7:1-17
Next Post
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Matthew 19:7
This year we have covered the first seventeen chapters of The Gospel According To Matthew.
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
Last week we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". This week we began Matthew 19. In the previous post, we covered Matthew 19:4-6. Here is the summary:
The Pharisees' asked Jesus a question focused on IS: According to the LAW, could a man PUT AWAY his wife for EVERY CAUSE?
If Jesus had answered their IS question, His ONLY two responses would be to prove He didn't know the LAW or state He couldn't answer the question. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to overextend Himself with His answer. THAT is WHY the question was a trap.
Instead, Jesus’ complete OUGHT answer was God intended the husband and the wife to be at Fellowship with God so they can have Fellowship with each other. This would prove they are BOTH believers. This would be proved by the man cleaving to his wife. The LAW gave NO provision for PUTTING AWAY a BELIEVING spouse.
However, it doesn’t end there. Jesus also said to stay at OUGHT by the man not allowing an empty space between him and his wife. We saw in Ephesians 5 this would be accomplished by the man applying the word of God to his wife for her benefit. This is what is meant by “cleaving”…for the man to be about the best interests of his wife.
Notice, this doesn’t mean a woman isn’t absolved from “putting asunder” the Marriage. Women are also able to put an empty space in the Marriage. If either person in the Marriage doesn’t share, then they are no longer at Fellowship and they have put an empty space between each other.
(Remember, the LAW stated ONLY men could DIVORCE their wife. However, either husband or wife could Put Away their spouse...which is the key to interpreting Mark 10:11-12 in a fashion that does NOT result in Jesus NOT being the Son of God!)
Jesus was asked a question about Putting Away. Jesus gave an answer relative to Putting Away. Every book that changes this serious discussion to a question about DIVORCE is actually a book that presents a Jesus that was NOT the Son of God. Be careful...
Jesus did NOT fall into the Pharisees' trap. His excellent Thought Process gave the ONLY Profitable answer to their question.
Today, we will look at the Pharisees' response...
MATTHEW 19:7
"7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?"
The Pharisees asked Jesus a question. We will look at this question in depth. However, let's return back to the list of twelve aspects from Bunyan's confrontation. In a previous post, we covered the first half of the list:
-The Believer initiated the confrontation
-The confrontation was with a person claiming to be a Believer but wasn't
-The confrontation began with a question on a serious topic
-The confronter focused on specific words/definitions
-The confronter was attempting to determine if the confronted was a Believer
-The confronted person accused the confronter of attempting to trap him
We now see only one of these aspects is the same as the confrontation in Matthew 19: The confrontation began with a question on a serious topic.
The other five were different. In Matthew 19:
-The UNBELIEVER initiated the confrontation
-The confrontation was with a person claiming to be a Believer AND WAS
-The CONFRONTED focused on specific words/definitions
-The confronter was attempting to TRAP the Believer
-The confronted person KNEW THEY WERE BEING TRAPPED
Now it looks like we can address the next four aspects:
-The confronter corrects the confronted
Actually, the confronted corrects the confronters.
-The confronted person responds by stating: I didn't expect the discussion to go this way and I'm not ready to give an answer.
The confronters essentially respond by saying they didn't expect the discussion to go this way because the confronted DID answer the question well.
-The confronted person states: this is a private matter, I don't have to answer because nothing requires me to answer unless you are a teacher of Christian doctrine...and even if you were, I'd still not answer you because you aren't the judge of me.
The confronted person answered the question well and taught doctrine.
-The confronted person asks the confronter why the questions were asked.
The confronters asked another question involving the past and trapping themselves! The confronters showed how well THEY knew the LAW.
So far, this confrontation in Matthew 19 had only one of the first ten aspects in common with Bunyan's Profitable confrontation presented in "Pilgrim's Progress".
Let's study the Thought Process of the Pharisees...
The Pharisees response to Jesus' answer about PUTTING AWAY was to ask the WHY behind "When is it right to Divorce?". The Pharisees asked Him WHY Moses commanded men to give a bill of divorcement and Put Away their wife. The Pharisees have now introduced the topic of Divorce...
Take a moment and look at the strategy being used with relation to questions and statements. The Pharisees asked a question (which isn’t a sin), in hopes of getting a wrong statement from Jesus. Jesus did NOT answer their IS question, but actually phrased OUGHT in the form of a question and ended with a factual statement relative to the Law! (Believers shouldn’t Put Away their spouses.) The Pharisees response was to ask another question, however, it was on a topic DIFFERENT than their original question.
Again, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. Jesus couldn’t answer their first question with a statement without being wrong because the answer was NOT in the Law. Jesus’ response caused the Pharisees to ask a question about the Law.
There are only two places in the Old Testament where Divorce and Putting Away are mentioned together. Neither involved Moses telling people to Divorce and Put Away.
"1 Thus saith Jehovah, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, wherewith I have put her away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities were ye sold, and for your transgressions was your mother put away." (Isaiah 50:1)
"8 And I saw, when, for this very cause that backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot." (Jeremiah 3:8)
(Again, click this link for more explanation on these passages.)
The passage about Divorce from Moses was Deuteronomy 24.
"1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;
4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Jehovah: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
There is nothing in this passage about PUTTING AWAY!
This second question was ALSO a trap!
SUMMARY
Jesus talked about OUGHT and the Pharisees acted like they were talking about OUGHT, but really spoke about IS. Again, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. Jesus couldn’t answer their first question with a statement without being wrong because the answer was NOT in the Law.
Jesus’ response caused the Pharisees to ask a question about the Law. This second question was posed like Jesus had a contradiction when He didn’t actually have one. However, the key to this question from the Pharisees was they asked WHY. The Pharisees' first Question was a WHAT.
They wanted to know WHY Moses gave them the command to Divorce and the command to Put Away if God didn’t intend for it to happen. They were really asking a question about God’s Will: WHY are we allowed to do something against God’s Will?
Can Jesus now answer this question?
Next Post
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
Last week we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". This week we began Matthew 19. In the previous post, we covered Matthew 19:4-6. Here is the summary:
The Pharisees' asked Jesus a question focused on IS: According to the LAW, could a man PUT AWAY his wife for EVERY CAUSE?
If Jesus had answered their IS question, His ONLY two responses would be to prove He didn't know the LAW or state He couldn't answer the question. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to overextend Himself with His answer. THAT is WHY the question was a trap.
Instead, Jesus’ complete OUGHT answer was God intended the husband and the wife to be at Fellowship with God so they can have Fellowship with each other. This would prove they are BOTH believers. This would be proved by the man cleaving to his wife. The LAW gave NO provision for PUTTING AWAY a BELIEVING spouse.
However, it doesn’t end there. Jesus also said to stay at OUGHT by the man not allowing an empty space between him and his wife. We saw in Ephesians 5 this would be accomplished by the man applying the word of God to his wife for her benefit. This is what is meant by “cleaving”…for the man to be about the best interests of his wife.
Notice, this doesn’t mean a woman isn’t absolved from “putting asunder” the Marriage. Women are also able to put an empty space in the Marriage. If either person in the Marriage doesn’t share, then they are no longer at Fellowship and they have put an empty space between each other.
(Remember, the LAW stated ONLY men could DIVORCE their wife. However, either husband or wife could Put Away their spouse...which is the key to interpreting Mark 10:11-12 in a fashion that does NOT result in Jesus NOT being the Son of God!)
Jesus was asked a question about Putting Away. Jesus gave an answer relative to Putting Away. Every book that changes this serious discussion to a question about DIVORCE is actually a book that presents a Jesus that was NOT the Son of God. Be careful...
Jesus did NOT fall into the Pharisees' trap. His excellent Thought Process gave the ONLY Profitable answer to their question.
Today, we will look at the Pharisees' response...
MATTHEW 19:7
"7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?"
The Pharisees asked Jesus a question. We will look at this question in depth. However, let's return back to the list of twelve aspects from Bunyan's confrontation. In a previous post, we covered the first half of the list:
-The Believer initiated the confrontation
-The confrontation was with a person claiming to be a Believer but wasn't
-The confrontation began with a question on a serious topic
-The confronter focused on specific words/definitions
-The confronter was attempting to determine if the confronted was a Believer
-The confronted person accused the confronter of attempting to trap him
We now see only one of these aspects is the same as the confrontation in Matthew 19: The confrontation began with a question on a serious topic.
The other five were different. In Matthew 19:
-The UNBELIEVER initiated the confrontation
-The confrontation was with a person claiming to be a Believer AND WAS
-The CONFRONTED focused on specific words/definitions
-The confronter was attempting to TRAP the Believer
-The confronted person KNEW THEY WERE BEING TRAPPED
Now it looks like we can address the next four aspects:
-The confronter corrects the confronted
Actually, the confronted corrects the confronters.
-The confronted person responds by stating: I didn't expect the discussion to go this way and I'm not ready to give an answer.
The confronters essentially respond by saying they didn't expect the discussion to go this way because the confronted DID answer the question well.
-The confronted person states: this is a private matter, I don't have to answer because nothing requires me to answer unless you are a teacher of Christian doctrine...and even if you were, I'd still not answer you because you aren't the judge of me.
The confronted person answered the question well and taught doctrine.
-The confronted person asks the confronter why the questions were asked.
The confronters asked another question involving the past and trapping themselves! The confronters showed how well THEY knew the LAW.
So far, this confrontation in Matthew 19 had only one of the first ten aspects in common with Bunyan's Profitable confrontation presented in "Pilgrim's Progress".
Let's study the Thought Process of the Pharisees...
The Pharisees response to Jesus' answer about PUTTING AWAY was to ask the WHY behind "When is it right to Divorce?". The Pharisees asked Him WHY Moses commanded men to give a bill of divorcement and Put Away their wife. The Pharisees have now introduced the topic of Divorce...
Take a moment and look at the strategy being used with relation to questions and statements. The Pharisees asked a question (which isn’t a sin), in hopes of getting a wrong statement from Jesus. Jesus did NOT answer their IS question, but actually phrased OUGHT in the form of a question and ended with a factual statement relative to the Law! (Believers shouldn’t Put Away their spouses.) The Pharisees response was to ask another question, however, it was on a topic DIFFERENT than their original question.
Again, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. Jesus couldn’t answer their first question with a statement without being wrong because the answer was NOT in the Law. Jesus’ response caused the Pharisees to ask a question about the Law.
There are only two places in the Old Testament where Divorce and Putting Away are mentioned together. Neither involved Moses telling people to Divorce and Put Away.
"1 Thus saith Jehovah, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, wherewith I have put her away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities were ye sold, and for your transgressions was your mother put away." (Isaiah 50:1)
"8 And I saw, when, for this very cause that backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot." (Jeremiah 3:8)
(Again, click this link for more explanation on these passages.)
The passage about Divorce from Moses was Deuteronomy 24.
"1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;
4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Jehovah: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
There is nothing in this passage about PUTTING AWAY!
This second question was ALSO a trap!
SUMMARY
Jesus talked about OUGHT and the Pharisees acted like they were talking about OUGHT, but really spoke about IS. Again, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. Jesus couldn’t answer their first question with a statement without being wrong because the answer was NOT in the Law.
Jesus’ response caused the Pharisees to ask a question about the Law. This second question was posed like Jesus had a contradiction when He didn’t actually have one. However, the key to this question from the Pharisees was they asked WHY. The Pharisees' first Question was a WHAT.
They wanted to know WHY Moses gave them the command to Divorce and the command to Put Away if God didn’t intend for it to happen. They were really asking a question about God’s Will: WHY are we allowed to do something against God’s Will?
Can Jesus now answer this question?
Next Post
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Matthew 19:4-6
This year we have covered the first seventeen chapters of The Gospel According To Matthew.
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
Last week we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". This week we began Matthew 19. In the previous post, we covered Matthew 19:3. Here is the summary:
Matthew 19:3 addressed five of the first six aspects of the Profitable confrontation presented by Bunyan in "Pilgrim's Progress". This one verse only agreed with one of the aspects presented by Bunyan. The other four aspects that were addressed were the OPPOSITE of the aspects from Bunyan's Profitable example.
The Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus by asking Him a question where Jesus' only answers (Statements) would show Jesus was wrong or didn't know the answer.
However, Jesus is the ULTIMATE example of an Excellent Thought Process.
Today, we will look at Jesus' Excellent response...
MATTHEW 19:4-6
"4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?
6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
The Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus by asking Him ACCORDING TO THE LAW could a man PUT AWAY his wife for EVERY CAUSE. In the previous post, we saw the LAW did NOT address this question...which is WHY the question was a trap. Basically, the Pharisees' question dealt with IS...not with OUGHT.
Remember, the difference between OUGHT and IS:
The first chapter of "Modeling God's Wills" introduces a HUGE concept that runs throughout the entire book. I call it "OUGHT vs. IS".
Above all else, my DO is determining models. I believe there is a reason WHY things work and/or don’t work even if we never know the reasons. I believe if we know the reasons we can intentionally achieve success. The key is to determine the objective. My FIRST question to EVERYONE that wants my help is: What is the objective? I have found there are really only two objectives...
Is the objective to achieve the ultimate profitability? Some people call this "doing the right thing." I call this OUGHT…”The way it OUGHT to be.”
OR, Is the objective to rationalize our current inability to understand and/or do the right thing...rationalize our inability to achieve OUGHT? I call this IS…”That’s the way it IS.”
Basically, are people looking for a solution (OUGHT) or an excuse why they should feel good about NOT taking responsibility for solving the problem (IS)?
IS applies to the physical world including our flesh. The physical focuses on the past (when it was better) and the present (when it is the best it is ever going to be). Notice it is impossible to think and talk solely about the present because it is less than a micro-second long. By the time you finish a sentence about the present, it has become the past. 99.999999% of everything you think and speak about is past or future. So, IS actually focuses on the past.
OUGHT applies to the spiritual realm and is perfection. The spiritual focuses on the future. The spiritual focuses on things we cannot see. OUGHT does NOT focus on APPEARANCE. This requires faith. The spiritual can become perfect. Whether it becomes perfect or not, the spiritual is eternal and cannot cease to exist. God is focused on OUGHT!
IS - Treating effects (explaining why we have a problem and how to live with it)...avoids responsibility and focuses on justifying self.
OUGHT -Treating causes (taking responsibility for solving the problem)...avoids justifying self and focuses on responsibility.
(Excerpt from post titled, "OUGHT vs. IS")
The Pharisees' question APPEARED to be focused on causes, but was actually focused on effects. The question asked what the LAW stated about PUTTING AWAY. If the LAW had stated the causes of PUTTING AWAY, then it would have been a question about causes. However, in the absence of causes stated in the LAW, the question must rely on effects and require Jesus to supply causes...which aren't stated in the LAW.
In yesterday's post, we saw an excerpt from "Critical Thinking"...a book meant to help people improve their Thought Processes. The excerpt stated we ought to make a painstaking effort to analyze an excellent Thought Process even though it is very uncomfortable, challenging, and difficult. Jesus is the ULTIMATE example of a Person with an excellent Thought Process. Are you ready to look at His response?
Jesus’ response was to speak about OUGHT: if people chose to be married, God intended a man to cleave to his wife. Jesus goes further and says that what God has “joined together, let not man put asunder.” Let’s take a moment to truly understand what Jesus is saying because this takes some thought.
First of all, Marriage is NOT a command. Remember, the question asked Jesus about the LAW. The Law does not say everyone has to get married. We have seen that Marriage is a God-given blessing. It is an opportunity to generate value to bring about God’s Will. However, it is ultimately a choice. It is a choice to enter into Marriage. It is a choice to exchange value with a spouse and God in a manner that generates MORE value. It is a choice to use this value to bring about God’s Will.
So, Jesus spoke about OUGHT when it came to all three choices. The Pharisees were focused on choosing to NOT be married.
In fact, if you think about Jesus’ answer more deeply, He said there is a way for a man and woman to want to stay together. Would Jesus say, “God intended a man and a woman to stay together even though there is no way for these two people to have a Marriage that continually grows in intensity and energy.”?
Look at the last verse of this passage more closely:
"6 ...What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Jesus specifically talked about a Marriage that God had joined together. Who would God join together? Believers! God told Israel to Put Away the unbelieving wives and children. So, the first point to realize about this passage is that Jesus is ONLY speaking about Marriage between Believers!
Jesus took control of the definitions in the question! The Pharisees asked about a "husband" and a "wife"...and about what the LAW stated about PUTTING AWAY. God intended PUTTING AWAY to be applied to UNBELIEVERS. So, Jesus defined the husband and wife as BELIEVERS (which is OUGHT)...and said OUGHT was God joining the couple, the man cleaving to his wife, and no one putting it asunder.
BIG PICTURE SUMMARY: Jesus took the Pharisees' IS question and redefined the terms so He could give answer the question from an OUGHT perspective.
Now, let's look at the small picture points Jesus made...
Remember, the implications of a man “cleaving” to his wife. The woman is more excellent than the man. Remember Ephesians 5 stated the man gives himself for the wife. Also Deuteronomy 10:20 told us to cleave to God. Clearly, God is the more excellent Being. This makes the wife the focus and the husband her servant leader. In addition, Jesus said when a man cleaves to his wife, then God has joined this couple.
A characteristic of OUGHT Marriage is the husband facilitates the Purpose and Progress of the wife. God is involved in this Marriage. To state that God joined a couple that doesn't have OUGHT is to say God is wrong or unjust/unfair.
Again, tradition tells us God has joined every Marriage together. Isn’t this the same as making our will into God’s Will? Isn’t this prideful? Isn't this justifying ourselves? Isn't this the same as interpreting the passage from Matthew 18 as we can bind and loose ANYTHING and God has to adjust to us? Do you see how Matthew 19 is a continuation of the themes from Matthew 18?
What does “joined together” mean?
“joined together” is Strong’s #4801 suzeugnumi – "to yoke together"!
Jesus said the husband and wife are in their proper roles and they are “equally yoked”. These two people are in Fellowship. We know the only way they can be in Fellowship with each other is if they are in Fellowship with God. This is proof God has yoked them together. People who are not in Fellowship with each other are not “joined together” by God. They are not BOTH believers!
So, Jesus' statement about what "God had joined together" was a statement of an OUGHT Marriage between Believers!
The second half of the verse said let no man “put asunder” what God had yoked together. What does “put asunder” mean?
“put asunder” is Strong’s #5562 choreo – "from 5561; to be in (give) space."
Strong’s #5561 chora – "fem. of a der. of the base of 5490 through the idea of empty expanse."
Jesus told the man not to put an empty (Unprofitable) space between him and his wife. This is Putting Away! Just like we saw in the verses from Paul: Believing spouses OUGHT NOT be Put Away. If they are ending the Marriage Covenant, they OUGHT to Divorce.
Remember, this serious discussion began with a question about Putting Away from the perspective of the man (husband). Putting Away can be seen as physically putting an empty space between the husband and wife because these two aren’t connected in the greater community. This would not apply to Divorce! This oft-quoted verse from Jesus was in response to the original question about Putting Away! People who use this verse to prevent Divorce or justify marriages involving an Unbeliever are OPPOSING God...and preventing God's Will from happening on earth as it does in Heaven!
Again, if you believe Putting Away and Divorce are interchangeable, please read this post: "Divorce and Putting Away Background", because believing these two actions are the same results in Jesus NOT being the Son of God! Be careful...
SMALL PICTURE SUMMARY
The Pharisees' asked Jesus a question focused on IS: According to the LAW, could a man PUT AWAY his wife for EVERY CAUSE?
If Jesus had answered their IS question, His ONLY two responses would be to prove He didn't know the LAW or state He couldn't answer the question. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to overextend Himself with His answer. THAT is WHY the question was a trap.
Instead, Jesus’ complete OUGHT answer was God intended the man and the woman to be at Fellowship with God so they can have Fellowship with each other. This would prove they are BOTH believers. This would be proved by the man cleaving to his wife. The LAW gave NO provision for PUTTING AWAY a BELIEVING spouse.
However, it doesn’t end there. Jesus also said to stay at OUGHT by the man not allowing an empty space between him and his wife. We saw in Ephesians 5 this would be accomplished by the man applying the word of God to his wife for her benefit. This is what is meant by “cleaving”…for the man to be about the best interests of his wife.
Notice, this doesn’t mean a woman isn’t absolved from “putting asunder” the Marriage. Women are also able to put an empty space in the Marriage. If either person in the Marriage doesn’t share, then they are no longer at Fellowship and they have put an empty space between each other.
(Remember, the LAW stated ONLY men could DIVORCE their wife. However, either husband or wife could Put Away their spouse...which is the key to interpreting Mark 10:11-12 in a fashion that does NOT result in Jesus NOT being the Son of God!)
Jesus was asked a question about Putting Away. Jesus gave an answer relative to Putting Away. Every book that changes this serious discussion to a question about DIVORCE is actually a book that presents a Jesus that was NOT the Son of God. Be careful...
Jesus did NOT fall into the Pharisees' trap. His excellent Thought Process gave the ONLY Profitable answer to their question.
Tomorrow, we will look at the Pharisees' response...
Next Post
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
Last week we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". This week we began Matthew 19. In the previous post, we covered Matthew 19:3. Here is the summary:
Matthew 19:3 addressed five of the first six aspects of the Profitable confrontation presented by Bunyan in "Pilgrim's Progress". This one verse only agreed with one of the aspects presented by Bunyan. The other four aspects that were addressed were the OPPOSITE of the aspects from Bunyan's Profitable example.
The Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus by asking Him a question where Jesus' only answers (Statements) would show Jesus was wrong or didn't know the answer.
However, Jesus is the ULTIMATE example of an Excellent Thought Process.
Today, we will look at Jesus' Excellent response...
MATTHEW 19:4-6
"4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?
6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
The Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus by asking Him ACCORDING TO THE LAW could a man PUT AWAY his wife for EVERY CAUSE. In the previous post, we saw the LAW did NOT address this question...which is WHY the question was a trap. Basically, the Pharisees' question dealt with IS...not with OUGHT.
Remember, the difference between OUGHT and IS:
The first chapter of "Modeling God's Wills" introduces a HUGE concept that runs throughout the entire book. I call it "OUGHT vs. IS".
Above all else, my DO is determining models. I believe there is a reason WHY things work and/or don’t work even if we never know the reasons. I believe if we know the reasons we can intentionally achieve success. The key is to determine the objective. My FIRST question to EVERYONE that wants my help is: What is the objective? I have found there are really only two objectives...
Is the objective to achieve the ultimate profitability? Some people call this "doing the right thing." I call this OUGHT…”The way it OUGHT to be.”
OR, Is the objective to rationalize our current inability to understand and/or do the right thing...rationalize our inability to achieve OUGHT? I call this IS…”That’s the way it IS.”
Basically, are people looking for a solution (OUGHT) or an excuse why they should feel good about NOT taking responsibility for solving the problem (IS)?
IS applies to the physical world including our flesh. The physical focuses on the past (when it was better) and the present (when it is the best it is ever going to be). Notice it is impossible to think and talk solely about the present because it is less than a micro-second long. By the time you finish a sentence about the present, it has become the past. 99.999999% of everything you think and speak about is past or future. So, IS actually focuses on the past.
OUGHT applies to the spiritual realm and is perfection. The spiritual focuses on the future. The spiritual focuses on things we cannot see. OUGHT does NOT focus on APPEARANCE. This requires faith. The spiritual can become perfect. Whether it becomes perfect or not, the spiritual is eternal and cannot cease to exist. God is focused on OUGHT!
IS - Treating effects (explaining why we have a problem and how to live with it)...avoids responsibility and focuses on justifying self.
OUGHT -Treating causes (taking responsibility for solving the problem)...avoids justifying self and focuses on responsibility.
(Excerpt from post titled, "OUGHT vs. IS")
The Pharisees' question APPEARED to be focused on causes, but was actually focused on effects. The question asked what the LAW stated about PUTTING AWAY. If the LAW had stated the causes of PUTTING AWAY, then it would have been a question about causes. However, in the absence of causes stated in the LAW, the question must rely on effects and require Jesus to supply causes...which aren't stated in the LAW.
In yesterday's post, we saw an excerpt from "Critical Thinking"...a book meant to help people improve their Thought Processes. The excerpt stated we ought to make a painstaking effort to analyze an excellent Thought Process even though it is very uncomfortable, challenging, and difficult. Jesus is the ULTIMATE example of a Person with an excellent Thought Process. Are you ready to look at His response?
Jesus’ response was to speak about OUGHT: if people chose to be married, God intended a man to cleave to his wife. Jesus goes further and says that what God has “joined together, let not man put asunder.” Let’s take a moment to truly understand what Jesus is saying because this takes some thought.
First of all, Marriage is NOT a command. Remember, the question asked Jesus about the LAW. The Law does not say everyone has to get married. We have seen that Marriage is a God-given blessing. It is an opportunity to generate value to bring about God’s Will. However, it is ultimately a choice. It is a choice to enter into Marriage. It is a choice to exchange value with a spouse and God in a manner that generates MORE value. It is a choice to use this value to bring about God’s Will.
So, Jesus spoke about OUGHT when it came to all three choices. The Pharisees were focused on choosing to NOT be married.
In fact, if you think about Jesus’ answer more deeply, He said there is a way for a man and woman to want to stay together. Would Jesus say, “God intended a man and a woman to stay together even though there is no way for these two people to have a Marriage that continually grows in intensity and energy.”?
Look at the last verse of this passage more closely:
"6 ...What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Jesus specifically talked about a Marriage that God had joined together. Who would God join together? Believers! God told Israel to Put Away the unbelieving wives and children. So, the first point to realize about this passage is that Jesus is ONLY speaking about Marriage between Believers!
Jesus took control of the definitions in the question! The Pharisees asked about a "husband" and a "wife"...and about what the LAW stated about PUTTING AWAY. God intended PUTTING AWAY to be applied to UNBELIEVERS. So, Jesus defined the husband and wife as BELIEVERS (which is OUGHT)...and said OUGHT was God joining the couple, the man cleaving to his wife, and no one putting it asunder.
BIG PICTURE SUMMARY: Jesus took the Pharisees' IS question and redefined the terms so He could give answer the question from an OUGHT perspective.
Now, let's look at the small picture points Jesus made...
Remember, the implications of a man “cleaving” to his wife. The woman is more excellent than the man. Remember Ephesians 5 stated the man gives himself for the wife. Also Deuteronomy 10:20 told us to cleave to God. Clearly, God is the more excellent Being. This makes the wife the focus and the husband her servant leader. In addition, Jesus said when a man cleaves to his wife, then God has joined this couple.
A characteristic of OUGHT Marriage is the husband facilitates the Purpose and Progress of the wife. God is involved in this Marriage. To state that God joined a couple that doesn't have OUGHT is to say God is wrong or unjust/unfair.
Again, tradition tells us God has joined every Marriage together. Isn’t this the same as making our will into God’s Will? Isn’t this prideful? Isn't this justifying ourselves? Isn't this the same as interpreting the passage from Matthew 18 as we can bind and loose ANYTHING and God has to adjust to us? Do you see how Matthew 19 is a continuation of the themes from Matthew 18?
What does “joined together” mean?
“joined together” is Strong’s #4801 suzeugnumi – "to yoke together"!
Jesus said the husband and wife are in their proper roles and they are “equally yoked”. These two people are in Fellowship. We know the only way they can be in Fellowship with each other is if they are in Fellowship with God. This is proof God has yoked them together. People who are not in Fellowship with each other are not “joined together” by God. They are not BOTH believers!
So, Jesus' statement about what "God had joined together" was a statement of an OUGHT Marriage between Believers!
The second half of the verse said let no man “put asunder” what God had yoked together. What does “put asunder” mean?
“put asunder” is Strong’s #5562 choreo – "from 5561; to be in (give) space."
Strong’s #5561 chora – "fem. of a der. of the base of 5490 through the idea of empty expanse."
Jesus told the man not to put an empty (Unprofitable) space between him and his wife. This is Putting Away! Just like we saw in the verses from Paul: Believing spouses OUGHT NOT be Put Away. If they are ending the Marriage Covenant, they OUGHT to Divorce.
Remember, this serious discussion began with a question about Putting Away from the perspective of the man (husband). Putting Away can be seen as physically putting an empty space between the husband and wife because these two aren’t connected in the greater community. This would not apply to Divorce! This oft-quoted verse from Jesus was in response to the original question about Putting Away! People who use this verse to prevent Divorce or justify marriages involving an Unbeliever are OPPOSING God...and preventing God's Will from happening on earth as it does in Heaven!
Again, if you believe Putting Away and Divorce are interchangeable, please read this post: "Divorce and Putting Away Background", because believing these two actions are the same results in Jesus NOT being the Son of God! Be careful...
SMALL PICTURE SUMMARY
The Pharisees' asked Jesus a question focused on IS: According to the LAW, could a man PUT AWAY his wife for EVERY CAUSE?
If Jesus had answered their IS question, His ONLY two responses would be to prove He didn't know the LAW or state He couldn't answer the question. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to overextend Himself with His answer. THAT is WHY the question was a trap.
Instead, Jesus’ complete OUGHT answer was God intended the man and the woman to be at Fellowship with God so they can have Fellowship with each other. This would prove they are BOTH believers. This would be proved by the man cleaving to his wife. The LAW gave NO provision for PUTTING AWAY a BELIEVING spouse.
However, it doesn’t end there. Jesus also said to stay at OUGHT by the man not allowing an empty space between him and his wife. We saw in Ephesians 5 this would be accomplished by the man applying the word of God to his wife for her benefit. This is what is meant by “cleaving”…for the man to be about the best interests of his wife.
Notice, this doesn’t mean a woman isn’t absolved from “putting asunder” the Marriage. Women are also able to put an empty space in the Marriage. If either person in the Marriage doesn’t share, then they are no longer at Fellowship and they have put an empty space between each other.
(Remember, the LAW stated ONLY men could DIVORCE their wife. However, either husband or wife could Put Away their spouse...which is the key to interpreting Mark 10:11-12 in a fashion that does NOT result in Jesus NOT being the Son of God!)
Jesus was asked a question about Putting Away. Jesus gave an answer relative to Putting Away. Every book that changes this serious discussion to a question about DIVORCE is actually a book that presents a Jesus that was NOT the Son of God. Be careful...
Jesus did NOT fall into the Pharisees' trap. His excellent Thought Process gave the ONLY Profitable answer to their question.
Tomorrow, we will look at the Pharisees' response...
Next Post
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Matthew 19:3
This year we have covered the first seventeen chapters of The Gospel According To Matthew.
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
Last week we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". In the previous post, we began Matthew 19. At the end of the post, we reviewed the twelve key aspects of Bunyan's Profitable confrontation. Here is the summary:
-The Believer initiated the confrontation
-The confrontation was with a person claiming to be a Believer but wasn't
-The confrontation began with a question on a serious topic
-The confronter focused on specific words/definitions
-The confronter was attempting to determine if the confronted was a Believer
-The confronted person accused the confronter of attempting to trap him
-The confronter corrects the confronted
-The confronted person responds by stating: I didn't expect the discussion to go this way and I'm not ready to give an answer.
-The confronted person states: this is a private matter, I don't have to answer because nothing requires me to answer unless you are a teacher of Christian doctrine...and even if you were, I'd still not answer you because you aren't the judge of me.
-The confronted person asks the confronter why the questions were asked.
-The confronted person calls the confronter names
-The confronted person walks away
Now, we are ready to look at a complex confrontation that involved Jesus...
MATTHEW 19:3
"3 And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"
This ONE VERSE addresses five of the first six aspects of Bunyan's confrontation! Let's compare and contrast the first half of Bunyan's twelve Profitable confrontation aspects...
-The Believer initiated the confrontation
In today's verse, the Unbelievers (Pharisees) initiated the confrontation.
-The confrontation was with a person claiming to be a Believer but wasn't
Today's verse: the confrontation was with a person (Jesus) claiming to be a Believer AND WAS.
-The confrontation began with a question on a serious topic
Today's verse ALSO shows a confrontation that began with a question on a serious topic.
-The confronter focused on specific words/definitions
Today's verse, in and of itself, doesn't address the specific words/definition. However, we will see this confrontation will eventually focus on the phrase "put away". So, this aspect isn't completely addressed in today's verse.
-The confronter was attempting to determine if the confronted was a Believer
Today's verse was NOT an attempt to DETERMINE if the confronted was a Believer. The purpose of the confrontation was to "try" Jesus.
-The confronted person accused the confronter of attempting to trap him
Today's verse BLATANTLY stated the purpose of the confronters (Pharisees) was to trap Jesus!
The verse stated the Pharisees approached (confronted) Jesus for the purpose to try Jesus. What does this word mean?
TRYING
trying is Strong's #3985 peirazo - "from #3984; to test"
Strong's #3984 peira - "from the base of #4008 (through the idea of piercing); a test, i.e. attempt, experience:-assaying, trial"
In the Bible, the word "tribulation" is used for an internal stress that may or may not have an end. The words "tempt", "try", and "trials/tests" are associated with external stresses that have a result...the purpose of the test is to determine what is in the person...if the person is excellent or not, which means there must be an end to the test so the result can be determined.
So, why was this question from the Pharisees a "trap"?
The question asked if it is LAWFUL for the husband to PUT AWAY his wife for EVERY CAUSE.
LAWFUL - The question tested Jesus' knowledge of the LAW...which was an attempt to limit Jesus.
PUT AWAY - The question asked about putting away, NOT divorce. If it was divorce, Jesus could have quoted Deuteronomy 24:1
"1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house."
Jesus could have answered: "for some unseemly thing in her"...because THAT is what the LAW stated. So, this aspect also limited Jesus.
We have covered the difference between putting away and divorce. Here is an excerpt from a post that gives an exhaustive overview:
In the Bible, "divorce" and "putting away" are two separate concepts.
Divorce is the way for believers to end their marriage covenant, while remaining in covenant through "the greater community".
Putting away is the way for a believer to end their marriage covenant AND remove the unbelieving (fornicating) spouse from "the greater community".
In the Old Testament, "the greater community" is Israel.
In the New Testament, "the greater community" is church.
Our culture's "divorce" is actually closer to the Bible's "putting away". The ending of the marriage covenant with one of the spouses being removed from the greater community.
Believing that "divorce" and "putting away" are the same concepts RESULTS in a person stating Jesus is NOT the Son of God...
(Excerpt from the post titled, "Divorce and Putting Away Background")
EVERY CAUSE - This is a tricky phrase. The Pharisees could have asked WHAT CAUSES could you put away your wife for? The Pharisees could have asked WHAT CAUSES CAN'T you put away your wife for? Instead, they asked if a man could put away his wife for EVERY CAUSE according to the LAW...which is abstract/ambiguous. This allowed the Pharisees room to contradict a "limited" Jesus.
The LAW did NOT specifically state the causes for putting away. The Old Testament had relatively few passages that addressed putting away. The passages that mentioned putting away allude to the cause as fornication...which is committing idolatry...which is giving one's self to an image...which involves UNBELIEF.
Remember, the SECOND POST of this year's Series covered the following passage concerning JESUS' BIRTH!
"18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily."
So, this question was also personal for Jesus! Here is what we stated about these two verses in that post:
Joseph was SPECIFICALLY called Mary's husband. Joseph was stated to be a righteous man. In other versions he was stated to be a just man. Joseph occupied the office for God because he was recognized by God as righteous and just! The fact that Joseph did not want to make a public example is why he wanted to put her away privately. Some commentaries state this was the practice. ACTUALLY, putting away was done publicly to make sure the person was put out of community.
Again, Modeling God's Wills deals extensively with God's Doctrine of Divorce and Putting Away...and we can see from this one verse it was COMPLETELY different than today's man-made doctrine of divorce! WOW! Two verses in the FIRST chapter of the NEW TESTAMENT, and we already see that the Traditional Church is NOT following God's Doctrines on Marriage, Divorce, and Putting Away!
As we all know from Modeling God's Wills, Joseph was going to put her away, not divorce her. He wanted to remove her from community, which was right and just to do. He did not have sex with her because he was righteous and just. He would not divorce her because in his eyes she must be still married to someone else, otherwise she would have a bill of divorcement.
(Excerpt from the post titled, "Matthew 1:18-25")
So, we see, the question by the Pharisees was a serious question with HUGE implications!
Putting away was intended for spouses that committed fornication. The two most common forms of fornication are: worshipping something other than God and sexual intercourse that violated the LAW...which implies the person is NOT a Believer. So, the cause of putting away was UNBELIEF...however, Jesus was asked the abstract version of this question in a fashion that required a YES or NO answer!...a further attempt to "limit" Jesus!
OVERVIEW OF QUESTION
The LAW didn't specify the causes of putting away.
If Jesus answered their question by saying, "YES" or "NO", then the Pharisees could have asked Jesus for the references from the LAW to back up His answer...which would have proved Jesus was WRONG.
If Jesus answered their question by stating He didn't know or couldn't answer the question, He would have shown He didn't know more than the Pharisees...which would have brought Jesus' authority (and Divinity) into question.
The Pharisees basically asked Jesus a question He couldn't answer without being Wrong or admitting He didn't have an answer.
THAT is WHY this question was a trap.
THINKING
I am reading a book titled "Critical Thinking" by Richard Paul and Linda Elder.
The purpose of the book is to teach people how to intentionally improve their ability to think. Here are two passages, very early in the book, addressing a method to improve your ability to think:
"This means you must be willing to practice special "acts" of thinking that are initially at least uncomfortable, and sometimes challenging and difficult. You have to learn to do with your mind "moves" analogous to what accomplished athletes learn to do (through practice and feedback) with their bodies. Improvement in thinking, in other words, is similar to improvement in other domains of performance, where progress is a product of sound theory, commitment, hard work, and practice." (p. 10)
and
"If you play tennis, and you want to play better, there is nothing more advantageous than to look at some films of excellent players in action and then painstakingly compare how they address the ball in comparison to you. You study their performance. You note what you need to do more of, what you need to do less of, and you practice, practice, practice. You got through many cycles of practice/feedback/practice. Your practice heightens your awareness of the IN's and OUT's of the art. You develop a vocabulary for talking about your "performance". Perhaps you get a coach." (p. 10)
I believe the Bible is the BEST resource to study thinking performance. We have covered in painstaking fashion one person's PERFECT THINKING: Elihu. In fact, we have seen that his example of PERFECT THINKING is so foreign to our "Christian" culture, most Biblical scholars and experts claim Elihu was speaking for the Devil!
The ULTIMATE example of PERFECT THINKING is Jesus. Matthew 19 is a very uncomfortable, challenging, and difficult passage to understand completely. However, when you make the painstaking effort, you will see that Jesus was EXCELLENT in His Thought Processes and you will understand why we aren't creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven. You will also learn some techniques that will improve your Thought Processes.
SUMMARY
Matthew 19:3 addressed five of the first six aspects of the Profitable confrontation presented by Bunyan in "Pilgrim's Progress". This one verse only agreed with one of the aspects presented by Bunyan. The other four aspects that were addressed were the OPPOSITE of the aspects from Bunyan's Profitable example.
The Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus by asking Him a question where Jesus' only answers (Statements) would show Jesus was wrong or didn't know the answer.
However, Jesus is the ULTIMATE example of an Excellent Thought Process.
Tomorrow, we will look at Jesus' Excellent response...
Next Post
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
Last week we concluded Matthew 18 and looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". In the previous post, we began Matthew 19. At the end of the post, we reviewed the twelve key aspects of Bunyan's Profitable confrontation. Here is the summary:
-The Believer initiated the confrontation
-The confrontation was with a person claiming to be a Believer but wasn't
-The confrontation began with a question on a serious topic
-The confronter focused on specific words/definitions
-The confronter was attempting to determine if the confronted was a Believer
-The confronted person accused the confronter of attempting to trap him
-The confronter corrects the confronted
-The confronted person responds by stating: I didn't expect the discussion to go this way and I'm not ready to give an answer.
-The confronted person states: this is a private matter, I don't have to answer because nothing requires me to answer unless you are a teacher of Christian doctrine...and even if you were, I'd still not answer you because you aren't the judge of me.
-The confronted person asks the confronter why the questions were asked.
-The confronted person calls the confronter names
-The confronted person walks away
Now, we are ready to look at a complex confrontation that involved Jesus...
MATTHEW 19:3
"3 And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"
This ONE VERSE addresses five of the first six aspects of Bunyan's confrontation! Let's compare and contrast the first half of Bunyan's twelve Profitable confrontation aspects...
-The Believer initiated the confrontation
In today's verse, the Unbelievers (Pharisees) initiated the confrontation.
-The confrontation was with a person claiming to be a Believer but wasn't
Today's verse: the confrontation was with a person (Jesus) claiming to be a Believer AND WAS.
-The confrontation began with a question on a serious topic
Today's verse ALSO shows a confrontation that began with a question on a serious topic.
-The confronter focused on specific words/definitions
Today's verse, in and of itself, doesn't address the specific words/definition. However, we will see this confrontation will eventually focus on the phrase "put away". So, this aspect isn't completely addressed in today's verse.
-The confronter was attempting to determine if the confronted was a Believer
Today's verse was NOT an attempt to DETERMINE if the confronted was a Believer. The purpose of the confrontation was to "try" Jesus.
-The confronted person accused the confronter of attempting to trap him
Today's verse BLATANTLY stated the purpose of the confronters (Pharisees) was to trap Jesus!
The verse stated the Pharisees approached (confronted) Jesus for the purpose to try Jesus. What does this word mean?
TRYING
trying is Strong's #3985 peirazo - "from #3984; to test"
Strong's #3984 peira - "from the base of #4008 (through the idea of piercing); a test, i.e. attempt, experience:-assaying, trial"
In the Bible, the word "tribulation" is used for an internal stress that may or may not have an end. The words "tempt", "try", and "trials/tests" are associated with external stresses that have a result...the purpose of the test is to determine what is in the person...if the person is excellent or not, which means there must be an end to the test so the result can be determined.
So, why was this question from the Pharisees a "trap"?
The question asked if it is LAWFUL for the husband to PUT AWAY his wife for EVERY CAUSE.
LAWFUL - The question tested Jesus' knowledge of the LAW...which was an attempt to limit Jesus.
PUT AWAY - The question asked about putting away, NOT divorce. If it was divorce, Jesus could have quoted Deuteronomy 24:1
"1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house."
Jesus could have answered: "for some unseemly thing in her"...because THAT is what the LAW stated. So, this aspect also limited Jesus.
We have covered the difference between putting away and divorce. Here is an excerpt from a post that gives an exhaustive overview:
In the Bible, "divorce" and "putting away" are two separate concepts.
Divorce is the way for believers to end their marriage covenant, while remaining in covenant through "the greater community".
Putting away is the way for a believer to end their marriage covenant AND remove the unbelieving (fornicating) spouse from "the greater community".
In the Old Testament, "the greater community" is Israel.
In the New Testament, "the greater community" is church.
Our culture's "divorce" is actually closer to the Bible's "putting away". The ending of the marriage covenant with one of the spouses being removed from the greater community.
Believing that "divorce" and "putting away" are the same concepts RESULTS in a person stating Jesus is NOT the Son of God...
(Excerpt from the post titled, "Divorce and Putting Away Background")
EVERY CAUSE - This is a tricky phrase. The Pharisees could have asked WHAT CAUSES could you put away your wife for? The Pharisees could have asked WHAT CAUSES CAN'T you put away your wife for? Instead, they asked if a man could put away his wife for EVERY CAUSE according to the LAW...which is abstract/ambiguous. This allowed the Pharisees room to contradict a "limited" Jesus.
The LAW did NOT specifically state the causes for putting away. The Old Testament had relatively few passages that addressed putting away. The passages that mentioned putting away allude to the cause as fornication...which is committing idolatry...which is giving one's self to an image...which involves UNBELIEF.
Remember, the SECOND POST of this year's Series covered the following passage concerning JESUS' BIRTH!
"18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily."
So, this question was also personal for Jesus! Here is what we stated about these two verses in that post:
Joseph was SPECIFICALLY called Mary's husband. Joseph was stated to be a righteous man. In other versions he was stated to be a just man. Joseph occupied the office for God because he was recognized by God as righteous and just! The fact that Joseph did not want to make a public example is why he wanted to put her away privately. Some commentaries state this was the practice. ACTUALLY, putting away was done publicly to make sure the person was put out of community.
Again, Modeling God's Wills deals extensively with God's Doctrine of Divorce and Putting Away...and we can see from this one verse it was COMPLETELY different than today's man-made doctrine of divorce! WOW! Two verses in the FIRST chapter of the NEW TESTAMENT, and we already see that the Traditional Church is NOT following God's Doctrines on Marriage, Divorce, and Putting Away!
As we all know from Modeling God's Wills, Joseph was going to put her away, not divorce her. He wanted to remove her from community, which was right and just to do. He did not have sex with her because he was righteous and just. He would not divorce her because in his eyes she must be still married to someone else, otherwise she would have a bill of divorcement.
(Excerpt from the post titled, "Matthew 1:18-25")
So, we see, the question by the Pharisees was a serious question with HUGE implications!
Putting away was intended for spouses that committed fornication. The two most common forms of fornication are: worshipping something other than God and sexual intercourse that violated the LAW...which implies the person is NOT a Believer. So, the cause of putting away was UNBELIEF...however, Jesus was asked the abstract version of this question in a fashion that required a YES or NO answer!...a further attempt to "limit" Jesus!
OVERVIEW OF QUESTION
The LAW didn't specify the causes of putting away.
If Jesus answered their question by saying, "YES" or "NO", then the Pharisees could have asked Jesus for the references from the LAW to back up His answer...which would have proved Jesus was WRONG.
If Jesus answered their question by stating He didn't know or couldn't answer the question, He would have shown He didn't know more than the Pharisees...which would have brought Jesus' authority (and Divinity) into question.
The Pharisees basically asked Jesus a question He couldn't answer without being Wrong or admitting He didn't have an answer.
THAT is WHY this question was a trap.
THINKING
I am reading a book titled "Critical Thinking" by Richard Paul and Linda Elder.
The purpose of the book is to teach people how to intentionally improve their ability to think. Here are two passages, very early in the book, addressing a method to improve your ability to think:
"This means you must be willing to practice special "acts" of thinking that are initially at least uncomfortable, and sometimes challenging and difficult. You have to learn to do with your mind "moves" analogous to what accomplished athletes learn to do (through practice and feedback) with their bodies. Improvement in thinking, in other words, is similar to improvement in other domains of performance, where progress is a product of sound theory, commitment, hard work, and practice." (p. 10)
and
"If you play tennis, and you want to play better, there is nothing more advantageous than to look at some films of excellent players in action and then painstakingly compare how they address the ball in comparison to you. You study their performance. You note what you need to do more of, what you need to do less of, and you practice, practice, practice. You got through many cycles of practice/feedback/practice. Your practice heightens your awareness of the IN's and OUT's of the art. You develop a vocabulary for talking about your "performance". Perhaps you get a coach." (p. 10)
I believe the Bible is the BEST resource to study thinking performance. We have covered in painstaking fashion one person's PERFECT THINKING: Elihu. In fact, we have seen that his example of PERFECT THINKING is so foreign to our "Christian" culture, most Biblical scholars and experts claim Elihu was speaking for the Devil!
The ULTIMATE example of PERFECT THINKING is Jesus. Matthew 19 is a very uncomfortable, challenging, and difficult passage to understand completely. However, when you make the painstaking effort, you will see that Jesus was EXCELLENT in His Thought Processes and you will understand why we aren't creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is in Heaven. You will also learn some techniques that will improve your Thought Processes.
SUMMARY
Matthew 19:3 addressed five of the first six aspects of the Profitable confrontation presented by Bunyan in "Pilgrim's Progress". This one verse only agreed with one of the aspects presented by Bunyan. The other four aspects that were addressed were the OPPOSITE of the aspects from Bunyan's Profitable example.
The Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus by asking Him a question where Jesus' only answers (Statements) would show Jesus was wrong or didn't know the answer.
However, Jesus is the ULTIMATE example of an Excellent Thought Process.
Tomorrow, we will look at Jesus' Excellent response...
Next Post
Monday, June 21, 2010
Matthew 19:1-2
This year we have covered the first seventeen chapters of The Gospel According To Matthew.
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
This week we concluded Matthew 18. In the previous post, looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Here is the summary:
If we are going to "do church" the way Jesus talked about in Matthew 18...we've got to be experts at confronting AND Repair. We have been doing this and finding out just how many Talkatives exist. Dealing poorly with Talkatives is one of the reasons the church is not growing and has little to offer in the U.S.
Today, we will begin Matthew chapter 19...
MATTHEW 19:1-2
"1 And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judaea beyond the Jordan;
2 and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there."
(Matthew chapter 18 documented Jesus Words about confrontation. Matthew chapter 19 began when Jesus "had finished these words". That phrase is referencing EVERYTHING Jesus stated in Matthew chapter 18. This first verse tells us Matthew chapter 19 is a continuation of the theme in Matthew chapter 18.)
(These verses stated Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem to be crucified. As we saw in Matthew chapter 18, His message was complex and intended for the mature Believer. This chapter is extremely complex and misunderstood.
(Notice, Jesus was still healing people and His popularity was growing. The following verse (3) began the complex confrontation. This week we will look at this confrontation in depth. For now, let's review the confrontation from the previous post.)
SUMMARY
The previous post concluded the example of a confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Here is a brief summary/overview of the confrontation:
-The Believer initiated the confrontation
-The confrontation was with a person claiming to be a Believer but wasn't
-The confrontation began with a question on a serious topic
-The confronter focused on specific words/definitions
-The confronter was attempting to determine if the confronted was a Believer
-The confronted person accused the confronter of attempting to trap him
-The confronter corrects the confronted
-The confronted person responds by stating: I didn't expect the discussion to go this way and I'm not ready to give an answer.
-The confronted person states: this is a private matter, I don't have to answer because nothing requires me to answer unless you are a teacher of Christian doctrine...and even if you were, I'd still not answer you because you aren't the judge of me.
-The confronted person asks the confronter why the questions were asked.
-The confronted person calls the confronter names
-The confronted person walks away
Now, we are ready to look at a complex confrontation that involved Jesus...
Next Post
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
This week we concluded Matthew 18. In the previous post, looked at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Here is the summary:
If we are going to "do church" the way Jesus talked about in Matthew 18...we've got to be experts at confronting AND Repair. We have been doing this and finding out just how many Talkatives exist. Dealing poorly with Talkatives is one of the reasons the church is not growing and has little to offer in the U.S.
Today, we will begin Matthew chapter 19...
MATTHEW 19:1-2
"1 And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judaea beyond the Jordan;
2 and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there."
(Matthew chapter 18 documented Jesus Words about confrontation. Matthew chapter 19 began when Jesus "had finished these words". That phrase is referencing EVERYTHING Jesus stated in Matthew chapter 18. This first verse tells us Matthew chapter 19 is a continuation of the theme in Matthew chapter 18.)
(These verses stated Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem to be crucified. As we saw in Matthew chapter 18, His message was complex and intended for the mature Believer. This chapter is extremely complex and misunderstood.
(Notice, Jesus was still healing people and His popularity was growing. The following verse (3) began the complex confrontation. This week we will look at this confrontation in depth. For now, let's review the confrontation from the previous post.)
SUMMARY
The previous post concluded the example of a confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Here is a brief summary/overview of the confrontation:
-The Believer initiated the confrontation
-The confrontation was with a person claiming to be a Believer but wasn't
-The confrontation began with a question on a serious topic
-The confronter focused on specific words/definitions
-The confronter was attempting to determine if the confronted was a Believer
-The confronted person accused the confronter of attempting to trap him
-The confronter corrects the confronted
-The confronted person responds by stating: I didn't expect the discussion to go this way and I'm not ready to give an answer.
-The confronted person states: this is a private matter, I don't have to answer because nothing requires me to answer unless you are a teacher of Christian doctrine...and even if you were, I'd still not answer you because you aren't the judge of me.
-The confronted person asks the confronter why the questions were asked.
-The confronted person calls the confronter names
-The confronted person walks away
Now, we are ready to look at a complex confrontation that involved Jesus...
Next Post
Friday, June 18, 2010
Confrontation (Conclusion)
This year we have covered the first seventeen chapters of The Gospel According To Matthew.
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
This week we concluded Matthew 18. In the previous post, we began looking at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Here is the summary:
Faithful has confronted a person who SAYS the right things but does not DO them.
Take a moment to re-read Talkative's responses and think of the interactions you have had with people when covering an important topic like "grace".
Were you Faithful or Talkative?
Were they Faithful or Talkative?
Remember, this was written more than 300 years ago.
Today, we will see Faithful's answer.
CONFRONTATION (CONCLUSION)
It is now Faithful's opportunity to explain grace. I will be using the original 1678 version of "The Pilgrim's Progress" for Faithful's explanation...but I will emphasize certain phrases with italics.
FAITHFUL: A Work of Grace in the Soul discovereth itself, either to him that hath it, or to standers by.
(First, I love that John Bunyan capitalized Grace and Soul. I feel a special connection to him for doing this. Second, his answer is that Grace is obvious to the person who has it and to others because it manifests itself in Works...actions...DO. Faithful continues...)
FAITHFUL: To that hath it, thus; It gives him Conviction of Sin, especially the defilement of his Nature, and the Sin of Unbelief, (for the sake of which he is sure to be damned, if he findeth not Mercy at God's hand by faith in Jesus Christ.) This fight and sense of things worketh in him sorrow and shame for Sin: He findeth moreover, revealed in him the Saviour of the World, and the absolute necessity of closing with him for Life, at the which he findeth hungrings and thirstings after him; to which hungrings, etc. the Promise is made. Now according to the strength or weakness of his faith in his Saviour, so is his Joy and Peace, so is his love to Holiness, so are his desires to know him more, and also to serve him in this World. But though, I say, it discovereth itself thus unto him, yet it is but seldom that he is able to conclude, that this is a Work of Grace, because his Corruptions now, and his abused Reason, make his mind to misjudge in this matter; therefore in him that hath this Work, there is required a very sound judgment, before he can with steadiness conclude that this is a Work of Grace. To others it is thus discovered:
1. By an experimental confession of his Faith in Christ.
2. By a Life answerable to that confession, to wit, a life of Holiness: heart-holiness, family-holiness, (if he hath a family,) and by conversation-holiness in the world; which in the general teacheth him inwardly to abhor his Sin, and himself for that, in secret; to suppress it in his family, and to promote holiness in the world; not by talk only, as an hypocrite or talkative person may do, but by a practical subjection in Faith and Love to the Power of the Word: And now, Sir, as to this brief description of the Work of Grace, and also the discovery of it, if you have ought to object, object; if not, then give me leave to propound to you a second question.
TALKATIVE: Nay, my part is not now to object, but to hear: Let me therefore have your second question.
(Talkative can't dispute what Faithful has said...and it is compatible with the Biblical definition of Grace, and NOT the definition of "unmerited favor"!))
FAITHFUL: It is this: Do you experience the first part of the description of it? And doth your Life and Conversation testify the same? Or standeth your Religion in Word or Tongue, and not in Deed and Truth? (THAT WAS THE SECOND PART...now watch what Faithful says next.) Pray, if you incline to answer me in this, say no more than you know the God above will say Amen to; and also nothing but what your Conscience can justify you in: For not he that commendeth himself, is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth. (II Corinthians 10:18) Besides, to say, I am thus, and thus, when my conversation, and all my neighbours, tell me I lie, is great wickedness.
(Faithful just asked a Question and immediately followed up with a STATE YOUR WILL qualifier!!!! Three hundred years ago, John Bunyan was writing about STATE YOUR WILL! What is Talkative going to say? How do most "talkative" people respond to "state your will" today?)
TALKATIVE. Then Talkative at first began to blush; but recovering himself, thus he replied: You come now to Experience, to Conscience, and God; and appeal to him for justification of what is spoken: This kind of discourse I did not expect: nor am I disposed to give an answer to such questions, because I count not myself bound thereto, unless you take upon you to be a Catechizer; and though you should so do, yet I refuse to make you my Judge: But I pray will you tell me why you ask me such questions?
(WOW!!!!!!)
(Talkative's response: I didn't expect the discussion to go this way and I'm not ready to give an answer. (The newer version translates this to: This is a private matter.) I don't have to answer because nothing requires me to answer unless you are a teacher of Christian doctrine...and even if you were, I'd still not answer you because you aren't the judge of me. So, even though I won't answer your question, please answer mine: WHY did you ask me these questions?)
For the rest of this post, I will be using the Modern English version today (with the original in parentheses).
FAITHFUL: Yes. Because I saw your forwardness to talk, and I did not know whether you had anything but words. Besides, to tell you the truth, I have heard that you are a man whose religion consists only in words and that your everyday life contradicts what you say. I am told that you are a blemish among Christians and that you bring reproach on the religion of Christ; that some have already stumbled over your wicked ways and that many more are in danger of being destroyed by your ungodly example. Furthermore, I am told that your religion and taverns, and covetousness, and uncleanness, swearing, lying, and immoral company-keeping go together. As the proverb says of a whore that "she is a shame to all women," so you are a shame to all professing Christians.
TALKATIVE: Since you are ready to take up reports, and to judge one so rashly and unjustly, I cannot but conclude that you are a peevish, fault-finding, melancholy person, unfit for wholesome conversation; therefore, I will bid you adieu.
(Notice, Talkative has removed himself from their company. Now, Christian and Faithful will discuss how Faithful handled Talkative. Do you think Faithful was right and just in how he handled Talkative?)
CHRISTIAN (having stopped for a moment, just ahead of them, now walks beside Faithful): I told you how it would be. Your words and his lusts could not mix. He would rather leave your company and turn away from truth than to repent and let Christ change his life. But he is gone, and let him go; the loss is all his own. He has saved us the trouble of separating from him. And unless he would have changed (which is doubtful), he would have been a bane and a blot in our company. Besides, the Apostle says, "From such withdraw thyself." (I Timothy 6:5)
FAITHFUL: But I am glad we had this little discussion with him; it may be that he will think on these things. However, I have dealt honestly and sincerely with him, and feel that I am clear of any responsibility if he is finally lost.
CHRISTIAN: You did right to talk plainly to him. There is not enough of this faithful dealing with souls these days, and lack of that causes the people to undervalue the Christian faith. Then when these talkative frauds, whose religion is only in word and who are debauched in their living and vain in their conversation, are admitted into the fellowship of Christians with the hope that they may be converted or contribute money, the people of the world are puzzled, the sincere are grieved, and Christianity is blemished. I wish that all Christians would deal with such as you have done. Then they would either be truly converted, or they would show their colors and leave the congregation of the saved.
(In the original, the last sentence was: "I wish that all men would deal with such, as you have done; then should they either be made more conformable to Religion, or the company of Saints would be too hot for them." Even Bunyan used the word HOT to explain that the result with such LUKEWARM people is to confront them so that they either become HOT or COLD. Bunyan stated the way Faithful dealt with Talkative is the way ALL Christians ought to deal with people for the good of Christianity...and even though Talkative will try to reverse reality, claim they were the one being Abused...and tell everyone else this version of events.)
Bunyan wrote 300 years ago, we ought to confront people for their benefit. However, most "Christians" DON'T do this!
Not confronting people is the same as OPPOSING God. Failing to confront people is damaging the church today.
Finally, here is an excerpt from "Modeling God":
"If I were working for the enemy, I would tell people I was a Christian and all they had to do was say they believed in Jesus. I would appeal to them emotionally and overload them with facts that made them feel prideful. I'd tell them the "golden key" concept - they were saved by unmerited favor no matter what they felt and how illogical it appeared."
"First of all, this would cause the "convert" not to receive salvation because he would feel like he was growing in knowledge, but actually he wouldn't be growing in the understanding and grace of God. Essentially, I would fuel the "convert's" pride."
"Second, this "convert" would be telling people who are unaware of God that this is what God is about. He would be such a poor advertisement for Christianity that the people who are unaware would have no interest in understanding more. They would realize this approach doesn't make sense and is based on emotions. They would realize "Christianity" is a shallow belief system for simpletons. This would cause the unaware not to receive salvation either." (p. 100-101)
CONCLUSION
If we are going to "do church" the way Jesus talked about in Matthew 18...we've got to be experts at confronting AND Repair. We have been doing this and finding out just how many Talkatives exist. Dealing poorly with Talkatives is one of the reasons the church is not growing and has little to offer in the U.S.
On Monday, we will begin Matthew chapter 19...and see a clear example of a confrontation done with evil intentions.
Next Post
Matthew chapters 18 and 19 are two crucial chapters of the New Testament. These chapters have the answers (HOW/WHY) church today is NOT creating the value needed to bring about God's Will on earth as it is done in Heaven.
However, people miss the solutions presented by Jesus because they lack the foundational doctrine. We will see most churches today do the OPPOSITE of Matthew chapters 18 and 19.
In order to more fully appreciate the information, we spent last month getting foundational background.
This week we concluded Matthew 18. In the previous post, we began looking at a practical application of confrontation from John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Here is the summary:
Faithful has confronted a person who SAYS the right things but does not DO them.
Take a moment to re-read Talkative's responses and think of the interactions you have had with people when covering an important topic like "grace".
Were you Faithful or Talkative?
Were they Faithful or Talkative?
Remember, this was written more than 300 years ago.
Today, we will see Faithful's answer.
CONFRONTATION (CONCLUSION)
It is now Faithful's opportunity to explain grace. I will be using the original 1678 version of "The Pilgrim's Progress" for Faithful's explanation...but I will emphasize certain phrases with italics.
FAITHFUL: A Work of Grace in the Soul discovereth itself, either to him that hath it, or to standers by.
(First, I love that John Bunyan capitalized Grace and Soul. I feel a special connection to him for doing this. Second, his answer is that Grace is obvious to the person who has it and to others because it manifests itself in Works...actions...DO. Faithful continues...)
FAITHFUL: To that hath it, thus; It gives him Conviction of Sin, especially the defilement of his Nature, and the Sin of Unbelief, (for the sake of which he is sure to be damned, if he findeth not Mercy at God's hand by faith in Jesus Christ.) This fight and sense of things worketh in him sorrow and shame for Sin: He findeth moreover, revealed in him the Saviour of the World, and the absolute necessity of closing with him for Life, at the which he findeth hungrings and thirstings after him; to which hungrings, etc. the Promise is made. Now according to the strength or weakness of his faith in his Saviour, so is his Joy and Peace, so is his love to Holiness, so are his desires to know him more, and also to serve him in this World. But though, I say, it discovereth itself thus unto him, yet it is but seldom that he is able to conclude, that this is a Work of Grace, because his Corruptions now, and his abused Reason, make his mind to misjudge in this matter; therefore in him that hath this Work, there is required a very sound judgment, before he can with steadiness conclude that this is a Work of Grace. To others it is thus discovered:
1. By an experimental confession of his Faith in Christ.
2. By a Life answerable to that confession, to wit, a life of Holiness: heart-holiness, family-holiness, (if he hath a family,) and by conversation-holiness in the world; which in the general teacheth him inwardly to abhor his Sin, and himself for that, in secret; to suppress it in his family, and to promote holiness in the world; not by talk only, as an hypocrite or talkative person may do, but by a practical subjection in Faith and Love to the Power of the Word: And now, Sir, as to this brief description of the Work of Grace, and also the discovery of it, if you have ought to object, object; if not, then give me leave to propound to you a second question.
TALKATIVE: Nay, my part is not now to object, but to hear: Let me therefore have your second question.
(Talkative can't dispute what Faithful has said...and it is compatible with the Biblical definition of Grace, and NOT the definition of "unmerited favor"!))
FAITHFUL: It is this: Do you experience the first part of the description of it? And doth your Life and Conversation testify the same? Or standeth your Religion in Word or Tongue, and not in Deed and Truth? (THAT WAS THE SECOND PART...now watch what Faithful says next.) Pray, if you incline to answer me in this, say no more than you know the God above will say Amen to; and also nothing but what your Conscience can justify you in: For not he that commendeth himself, is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth. (II Corinthians 10:18) Besides, to say, I am thus, and thus, when my conversation, and all my neighbours, tell me I lie, is great wickedness.
(Faithful just asked a Question and immediately followed up with a STATE YOUR WILL qualifier!!!! Three hundred years ago, John Bunyan was writing about STATE YOUR WILL! What is Talkative going to say? How do most "talkative" people respond to "state your will" today?)
TALKATIVE. Then Talkative at first began to blush; but recovering himself, thus he replied: You come now to Experience, to Conscience, and God; and appeal to him for justification of what is spoken: This kind of discourse I did not expect: nor am I disposed to give an answer to such questions, because I count not myself bound thereto, unless you take upon you to be a Catechizer; and though you should so do, yet I refuse to make you my Judge: But I pray will you tell me why you ask me such questions?
(WOW!!!!!!)
(Talkative's response: I didn't expect the discussion to go this way and I'm not ready to give an answer. (The newer version translates this to: This is a private matter.) I don't have to answer because nothing requires me to answer unless you are a teacher of Christian doctrine...and even if you were, I'd still not answer you because you aren't the judge of me. So, even though I won't answer your question, please answer mine: WHY did you ask me these questions?)
For the rest of this post, I will be using the Modern English version today (with the original in parentheses).
FAITHFUL: Yes. Because I saw your forwardness to talk, and I did not know whether you had anything but words. Besides, to tell you the truth, I have heard that you are a man whose religion consists only in words and that your everyday life contradicts what you say. I am told that you are a blemish among Christians and that you bring reproach on the religion of Christ; that some have already stumbled over your wicked ways and that many more are in danger of being destroyed by your ungodly example. Furthermore, I am told that your religion and taverns, and covetousness, and uncleanness, swearing, lying, and immoral company-keeping go together. As the proverb says of a whore that "she is a shame to all women," so you are a shame to all professing Christians.
TALKATIVE: Since you are ready to take up reports, and to judge one so rashly and unjustly, I cannot but conclude that you are a peevish, fault-finding, melancholy person, unfit for wholesome conversation; therefore, I will bid you adieu.
(Notice, Talkative has removed himself from their company. Now, Christian and Faithful will discuss how Faithful handled Talkative. Do you think Faithful was right and just in how he handled Talkative?)
CHRISTIAN (having stopped for a moment, just ahead of them, now walks beside Faithful): I told you how it would be. Your words and his lusts could not mix. He would rather leave your company and turn away from truth than to repent and let Christ change his life. But he is gone, and let him go; the loss is all his own. He has saved us the trouble of separating from him. And unless he would have changed (which is doubtful), he would have been a bane and a blot in our company. Besides, the Apostle says, "From such withdraw thyself." (I Timothy 6:5)
FAITHFUL: But I am glad we had this little discussion with him; it may be that he will think on these things. However, I have dealt honestly and sincerely with him, and feel that I am clear of any responsibility if he is finally lost.
CHRISTIAN: You did right to talk plainly to him. There is not enough of this faithful dealing with souls these days, and lack of that causes the people to undervalue the Christian faith. Then when these talkative frauds, whose religion is only in word and who are debauched in their living and vain in their conversation, are admitted into the fellowship of Christians with the hope that they may be converted or contribute money, the people of the world are puzzled, the sincere are grieved, and Christianity is blemished. I wish that all Christians would deal with such as you have done. Then they would either be truly converted, or they would show their colors and leave the congregation of the saved.
(In the original, the last sentence was: "I wish that all men would deal with such, as you have done; then should they either be made more conformable to Religion, or the company of Saints would be too hot for them." Even Bunyan used the word HOT to explain that the result with such LUKEWARM people is to confront them so that they either become HOT or COLD. Bunyan stated the way Faithful dealt with Talkative is the way ALL Christians ought to deal with people for the good of Christianity...and even though Talkative will try to reverse reality, claim they were the one being Abused...and tell everyone else this version of events.)
Bunyan wrote 300 years ago, we ought to confront people for their benefit. However, most "Christians" DON'T do this!
Not confronting people is the same as OPPOSING God. Failing to confront people is damaging the church today.
Finally, here is an excerpt from "Modeling God":
"If I were working for the enemy, I would tell people I was a Christian and all they had to do was say they believed in Jesus. I would appeal to them emotionally and overload them with facts that made them feel prideful. I'd tell them the "golden key" concept - they were saved by unmerited favor no matter what they felt and how illogical it appeared."
"First of all, this would cause the "convert" not to receive salvation because he would feel like he was growing in knowledge, but actually he wouldn't be growing in the understanding and grace of God. Essentially, I would fuel the "convert's" pride."
"Second, this "convert" would be telling people who are unaware of God that this is what God is about. He would be such a poor advertisement for Christianity that the people who are unaware would have no interest in understanding more. They would realize this approach doesn't make sense and is based on emotions. They would realize "Christianity" is a shallow belief system for simpletons. This would cause the unaware not to receive salvation either." (p. 100-101)
CONCLUSION
If we are going to "do church" the way Jesus talked about in Matthew 18...we've got to be experts at confronting AND Repair. We have been doing this and finding out just how many Talkatives exist. Dealing poorly with Talkatives is one of the reasons the church is not growing and has little to offer in the U.S.
On Monday, we will begin Matthew chapter 19...and see a clear example of a confrontation done with evil intentions.
Next Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)