"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

The Schools of Shammai and Hillel

Among the things advanced in this discussion is that in Matt. 19:9, the Pharisees who are tempting Jesus, are asking him to decide between the two Pharisaical schools on marriage and divorce, the school of Shammai, and the school of Hillel.

This premise is utterly false. The premise is

1) that the Pharisees are trying to get Christ to interpret the law of Moses, and

2) that in reply he is interpreting it.

Both assumptions are impossible.  In the first place, the last thing the Pharisees wanted to do was to give Christ the appearance of an authority judging between their rival groups. This would have accomplished the very opposite of what they were trying to do. It would simply divide them, and make them look foolish, and it would exalt Christ as an arbiter in the eyes of the people. If they had come in sincerity, as some occasionally did, this explanation might hold water, but we are told they came "tempting him."  Some argue that the reason the Pharisees did this was to splinter off some of Jesus' disciples who held a different position than what he taught on divorce.  The reality is that it would have splintered the Pharisees' united position against Christ.

Remember what happened when Paul merely said in the Council that was trying him, "I am a Pharisee: for the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am called in question." Immediately there was an uproar, and the Council which had been trying to preserve a united front to condemn him was torn into factions. No indeed, the Pharisees did not want to set Christ up as a judge among their factions!

And the other assumption is equally invalid. The fundamental and very dangerous fallacy of this argument is that Christ is teaching two different laws at different times, and that it takes an involved argument to decide which is which.

The fundamental and simple and beautiful truth of the matter is that Christ is always and everywhere teaching his own law of life, and that we do not need any involved reasoning to decide what to believe...that we can rest with simple confidence and faith upon all he says.

* * *

The introduction of these traditions of men about the "school of Hillel" and the "school of Shammai" is entirely beside the point. Furthermore, it is a dangerous and confusing, obscuring of the picture. That we should need an understanding of these traditions to explain a first principle of Scripture should strike everyone as strange, and beyond the plane of reason.

In the first place, it is, at best, just a tradition.  Human tradition is notoriously undependable. That this should be needed in this elaborate building of a case against what was the simple and inescapable meaning of Christ's words, is surely a warning red light! In the second place, human tradition is not consistent in it's testimony about these two men (or "schools"), in the very aspects upon which this argument depends for it's basic premise.

It is argued by the "Divorce groups" that the school of Shammai only allowed divorce for adultery.  Therefore, if Jesus was agreeing with the school of Shammai in granting the "Exceptive Clause," he would have so stated.  Here are four of the few "authorities" that throw doubt on the positive assertion "the school of Shammai only allowed divorce for adultery."

1. Hastings Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3 Pg. 275:  "Marriage - The school of Shammai treated the second clause (of Deut. 24:1) as the significant one, and emphasised 'unseemly' which they interpreted as meaning immoral or at least indecent conduct."

So according to this "authority" (and it is as good as any) --

a.) The teaching of Shammai did not restrict divorce to adultery.

b.) The teaching of Shammai is at best indefinite.

2. Speaker's Commentary, N.T., Vol 1 Pg. 30 (under Matt 5:32) "The school of Shammai interpreted the uncleanness strictly of adultery, or at least immodest conduct."

Again, pretty indefinite to build a case on.

3. Peake's commentary, Pg. 716 (under Matt. 19:3): "...the view of Shammai that a man could put away his wife for serious misconduct only."

Again,indefinite.

This last one is the most interesting, for it puts the matter in an entirely different light altogether...that none of the Jewish teachers actually limited divorce to adultery... that at very best, it was a matter of advice and not law. Here we can begin to see how the Pharisees hoped to build a case against Christ concerning the law. Speaking of Shammai's teaching (Pg.333),

4. Edersheim, Life and times of Jesus, (Bk 4, Ch. 2 Pg. 331-336)  "This must not be regarded as a fixed legal principle, but rather as an opinion and good counsel for conduct...Hence it is a serious mistake for commentators to set the teaching of Christ on the subject by the side of that of Shammai."

Further:

Ibid. Pg. 334: "it must be again repeated that no real comparison is possible between Christ and even the strictest of the rabbis, since none of them actually prohibited divorce except to the case of adultery."

This puts the matter in a much clearer light (if true). As Ederheim says in introducing the whole section:

Ibid. Pg. 322: "Probably they also imagined it would be easy to show on this point a marked difference between the teaching of Jesus and that of Moses and the rabbis, and to enlist popular feeling against him."

It was not at all (could not have possibly been) trying to get Christ to determine between the rabbis. This could only work to the Pharisees' confusion and Christ's enhanced stature with the people. It was rather (as they supposed) Christ's new law against Moses and the rabbis. THIS is what they wanted to trip him on. This is clearly illustrated on another occasion.

In John 8:2 we have recorded the Pharisees bringing to Jesus one caught in adultery.  They thought they had Jesus painted into a corner. 

John 8:3-5 "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"

"Moses commanded death, but what sayest thou?"   They thought they had him. He had taught either forgiveness if possible, or divorce, if necessary. They claimed Moses law demanded death.  Jesus pointed out that Moses Law presupposed a righteous nation carrying it out, and obeying it themselves. He showed their zeal to be hypocrisy, and he put them in the position of Judah before Tamar (Gen. 38:24-26).

So much for Hillel and Shammai, and the shaky and undependable "authorities" and traditions of men.

The reason that Hillel and Shammai are discussed at all, is to try and find some context though which the obvious teaching of Matt. 5:7 and Matt. 19:9 can be denied.  The Divorce groups argue that if Christ was allowing an exception to the Divine Marriage law for adultery, Shammai would have been correct, and Christ would have so stated.  The conclusion is then drawn that since Christ did not say he agreed with one of the schools of thought, that we should understand that he did not agree with either. 

This is pure groundless presumption, as to what Christ "would have stated", and needs no further refutation. We could with equal right assert, "If the man who sought Christ's help in judging between him and his brother was correct, Christ would have so stated."

Jesus did not come to teach the dying Law, but a new and living way. Building a long chain of elaborate argument on such weak links as "If such were the case, Christ would have said so." is surely obviously unsound and dangerous. There are various times Christ chose not to answer a question directly, or even not at all. He had one purpose only.

Did Jesus Teach the Law of Moses

An Exception is not a Contradiction

Twisting Words

Exception Clause Home Page

Berean Home Page