"They received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.  Therefore many believed."--Acts 17:11

The Berean Christadelphians

Index

Did Jesus Teach the Law of Moses?

To nullify the Exceptive clause, some of the divorce groups argue that when Jesus gave the Exceptive Clause, he was teaching the Mosaic Law.  When he did not include the Exceptive Clause, he was teaching his law.  The truth is that Christ came solely and exclusively to proclaim HIS OWN law... the new law...rising far above and superseding the Law of Moses which was now "waxen old and ready to vanish away": The "old wine in old bottles."

"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time, the Kingdom of God is preached" (Luke 16:16.)

"The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ"  (John 1:17.)

Let us get this picture clearly. He was the new:  He never taught the old. He fulfilled the Law.  He never taught it.  It would have been confusion had he done so. And when they sought to get him to be a judge according to the Law of Moses, he very resolutely rejected the idea  --

"Man, who made me a judge and a divider over you?" (Luke.12:14)

He kept the picture clear.  Jesus came solely to teach his own new law, and if we can but see this clearly, all these fogs about him teaching the Law of Moses in Matt. 5 - 7 and elsewhere will fall away.

The two passages (Matt. 5:32 & 19:9) in Christ's teaching which deal with the Exceptive Clause, are attempted to be ignored and dismissed by transferring these commandments from Christ's law to the Law of Moses.  We will show by their very context and construction how impossible this interpretation is.

It is argued that it is a rule that any time Christ speaks to his disciples (therefore to all his Household of Faith), he makes no mention of any permission to divorce, or to remarry. It is only when he is explaining the Mosaic Law is the Exceptive Clause mentioned. 

It is very dangerous to put forth the idea that we must somehow determine by elaborate argument when Christ is speaking to us, and when he is not, to determine which of Christ's teachings and commands apply to us, and which do not.  But this is the method of interpretation used to deny the force of the Exceptive Clause.  In fact, there are only four places where this "rule" can be applied to the teaching of Christ concerning divorce: Mt. 5:32 & 19:9, Mk 10:11 & 12 and Lk 16:18. 

Let us start out with Luke 16:18, where the Exceptive clause is not mentioned.  Now note very well to whom Jesus IS talking in this Luke 16:18:

V14, "And the Pharisees heard all these things and derided him."

V15, "And he said unto them" -- note well -- "he said unto them"

. .and then vs 16-18 follow: And Christ is speaking directly to the Pharisees.

So here in Luke 16, we have Jesus speaking directly to the Pharisees and there is no mention of the Exceptive Clause.  Now it is of no great consequence to me whom he was teaching, because I am convinced he was always teaching his own glorious new law, and never the old "ready to vanish away" Law of Moses. But it is of GREAT consequence to the whole argument of the divorce groups whom he happens to be teaching.  Yet we find that in Luke 16, the very opposite of their "rule" is established! Let us test the rule a little further.

Let us look at Matt. 5-7, the very beginning of Jesus' recorded teaching the very heart and foundation of all his teaching.

Matt. 5:1  "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came to him: and he opened his mouth and taught THEM."

And 3 chapters later, at the close of this long discourse to his disciples --

Matt 7:28-29  "And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."

If there is any place in the gospels where we can say with absolute assurance that Jesus is quietly, authoritatively, specifically, fundamentally, teaching His law to His disciples, then this is it. Sound Christadelphians have always regarded these three chapters as the glorious foundation of the law of Christ - the new law, as contrasted with the old law of Moses. Bro. Roberts extols these chapters repeatedly and lovingly.

I emphasise this strongly because some of the arguments from the Divorce groups, in their anxiety to get rid of Matt. 5:32, are positively frightening in their determined attempts to divert this whole discourse into a mere commentary on the Law of Moses, that was ready to vanish away. Here indeed is the new wine in old bottles!

Now our main point at this time is Matt. 5:31-32.  Right here, in the middle of the discourse, in a series of direct contrast with Moses Law:  We have no argument with the Pharisees, no conflict with anyone -- just a quiet, authoritative teaching of his own disciples. And here we have the Exceptive Clause. So the "rule" completely breaks down again, the second time we test it. Luke 16:18 to the Pharisees: No mention of the Exceptive Clause. Matt. 5:32 to disciples: Exceptive clause given, in a direct contrast with the Law of Moses. 

Next we look at Mark 10:11-12 and Jesus teaching "in the house."  Let us look closer. Much is made of Jesus teaching "in the house" in an endeavour (which we have seen broke down in 2 previous tests) to prove that Jesus taught different laws to different people. The more I think of this theory, the more dangerous I realize it to be.

We have seen that what he says here, to the disciples "in the house" in Mk 10:11-12 (basic law without the Exceptive Clause), is the same as he says to the Pharisees out in the open, in Luke 16:18. 

In Mark 10, he also adds the reverse rule, saying a woman commits adultery if she puts away her husband and marries another.  Some divorce groups call attention to this later point to prove Jesus cannot be teaching the Law of Moses on this occasion, but his own law, for the Law of Moses had no provision for a woman initiating a divorce. I have no quarrel with this, for I believe Jesus is always teaching his own law, but the attempt to use it to make a distinction between his teachings to different groups is dangerous. And if it were valid, then Matt. 19:9 couldn't refer to Moses' Law either, because the wording is inappropriate to its circumstances, and so it would ruin the argument advanced by the Divorce groups there.  But this is irrelevant because the distinction is not valid.

But the point (that women could not divorce their husbands under the Mosaic Law) is not even then as strong as it appears, for "authorities" (for what they are worth) tell us (and anyone can easily confirm this) that --

1. In the Roman world (the then existing constitution), women could divorce husbands. We know that many Jews (perhaps the bulk of them - as today - lived by Gentile law). ("The Grecians of the New Testament."). And --

2. Under Moses' Law, in Christ's day (and before) a woman could "put away" her husband by being sufficiently offensive to force him to divorce her and that this was not at all uncommon. So in practice, the Law worked both ways. (But all this is really beside the point either way).

So though the law did not allow for divorce in fact, the practice extant in Israel was such that women could and did divorce their husbands.

So as we test this "rule" that Jesus, when speaking to the Pharisees teaches the Law of Moses and includes the Exceptive Clause, but when talking to his disciples, he does not;  we see the rule fails.  In two of the cases, if it proves anything, it proves the very opposite of what it is claimed to prove. I could just as justifiably argue, from Luke 16:18 & Matt. 5 that when Jesus speaks to the Pharisees, he does not mention the Exceptive Clause and when he speaks to his disciples he does. But this would be equally erroneous as arguing the other way, as the divorce groups do, for it is 2 one way and 2 the other, to the Pharisees, in a controversy, one with the exceptive clause, one without. To his own disciples, in simple teaching, 1 with the Exceptive Clause, 1 without.

Doesn't this clear and striking pattern teach us something?  And let us note: among the 4 cases, Mt. 5:32 stands unique as part of a long, authoritative discourse to his disciples, with the "multitudes" also listening, and here the Exceptive Clause appears.

To support the theory that Matt. 5 - 7 is a commentary on the law of Moses, some point to the Matt. 8:4 -- the cured leper --"Show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded."  The argument is that in so saying, Jesus is not teaching his own law, but the Mosaic Law.

Was Christ teaching his own law here? Of course. His law is to submit to the powers that be. Christ's law taught obedience to the law of any land we live in. The law of Moses had a double claim to obedience as being directly from God, which man's laws are not. But Christ was not teaching the law of Moses, any more than he would be teaching the law of the United States if he told us (as he would) to fulfil any regulations of the Board of Health if he had cured us (as he did here) of a quarantined disease.

For more detail on this important point, please go Here

The School of Shammai and Hillel

An Exception is not a Contradiction

Twisting Words

The Exceptive Clause Home Page

Berean Home Page