|
Although the Pharisees sought diligently to entrap Jesus in His words in order to find him guilty of something for which they could kill him, they did not charge him with contradicting Moses on MDR. Thus, we can confidently conclude that they did not understand Jesus to have taught contrary to Moses. Unlike some people today, these men of Jesus’ day, who understood his words far better than we can, did not hear him say that a divorce is no longer a divorce unless it was done because of adultery. Nor did they hear him say that all divorcees who are remarried are living in adultery. Unfortunately, this argument is often completely ignored. But some have argued, "A question does not prove anything." Well, let us look at some teaching from Paul to see whether or not a question can prove something. From the scripture below, it is clear that a question, like the one noted above, can indeed be a valid and powerful argument.
In writing to the church at Galatia the apostle Paul made an argument that follows the same line of logic as the one I have noted that is often ignored. He said (Gal 5:11):
Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching that circumcision is necessary, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the cross wouldn't be offensive anymore. (GW).
Some in the church at Galatia were teaching justification by the Law of Moses and that circumcision was essential. The above passage, which is basically a question, was an argument—a valid and powerful argument. Paul argues that he is not still teaching circumcision (as was the case before his conversion) because if he were the Jews would not be persecuting him. Thus, instead of stating outright that he is not contending for circumcision, as some may have charged, he presents an argument in the form of a question. Now, if Paul can use this kind of argumentation, and we can see the power of it, why can we not use the same type of argumentation and see the power of it when it comes to the MDR issue? If Jesus had indeed taught contrary to the Law on MDR why would the Pharisees, who continually sought this very type of declaration from Jesus so they could kill him, not use his words against Him? Why did they not say at Jesus' trial, "This man has taught contrary to Moses by saying we not only cannot divorce, unless it is for adultery, but also all who have done so are now living in adultery"? Only one answer makes sense: Jesus did not say what many have attributed to him. If he had done so, he would have contradicted Moses and been viewed as a transgressor of the Law of Moses.
Rather than assume that Jesus taught something that has consequences we cannot accept, we must believe what Jesus actually said. Some try to prove from the context that Jesus had divorce, as we understand it, in mind but the context does not bear this out. If the context indicates that Jesus had divorce in mind in the discussion recorded in Matthew 19, why do we have no indication that the Pharisees used Jesus' teaching against him?
|
