|
In his effort to defend the traditional MDR doctrine that is founded on the idea that Jesus said, contrary to Moses, that divorced people live in adultery if they marry, David Willis, and a few others, argue that Jesus DID in fact change the Law. He has a couple of passages, which I shall deal with in this post, that he uses to try to support the theory.
David wrote:
Part of what He taught had not been taught before. It was NOT "the law and the prophets." Those were "until John" (Lk 16:16). After that, there was something diff. taught besides just "the law and the prophets."
The argument is as follows: The Old Testament ended with John and therefore Jesus, who lived at the same time as John, taught something different. Thus, he could change Moses' teachings regarding who could marry.
This statement poses some obvious problems. The first problem is that no evidence exists that the Jews, who sought to entrap Jesus in His words so they could kill him, accepted Jesus as a prophet and certainly not one that could contradict the Law.
Another problem with the theory Willis holds is that if John was the last prophet then Jesus was not a prophet because He was born after John. But the Bible says Jesus was a prophet: Deu 18:15; Acts 3:22; 7:37; Heb 1:1,2). Therefore, Willis' argument fails.
Third, proponents of this theory offer no explanation as to why the Jews, who wanted to find something against Jesus so they could kill him, did not charge Him with contradicting Moses in His teaching on MDR. In truth, we need not wonder why the Jews didn’t use this to convict Jesus. The reason is that He did not contradict the Law.
Does the text say what Willis contends it says:
Mat 11:13
(ASV) For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
(CEV) All the Books of the Prophets and the Law of Moses told what was going to happen up to the time of John.
(GNB) Until the time of John all the prophets and the Law of Moses spoke about the Kingdom;
Luke 16:16
(CEV) Until the time of John the Baptist, people had to obey the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets. But since God's kingdom has been preached, everyone is trying hard to get in.
(ISV) "The law and the Prophets were prophesying until the time of John. Since then, the good news about the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is trying to enter it by force.
(KJV) The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
Barnes:
Mt 11:13 All the prophets, etc. It is meant by this verse that John introduced a new dispensation; and that the old one, where the prophets and the law of Moses were the guide, was closed when he preached that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. By the law is meant the five books of Moses; by the prophets, the remainder of the books of the Old Testament.
The key phrase in Barnes' comments is "introduced a new dispensation." This obviously does not mean that the New Law went into effect at John’s birth. Nor did it go into effect at some point in John's life. The Law of Moses ended upon the death of Christ, at which time the New Testament went into effect (Heb. 9:16, 17).
Swearing
Another argument that Willis and others make to try to show that Jesus contradicted the Law is Jesus' teachings regarding swearing.
The text:
Mt 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Mt 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
Mt 23:18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
Mt 23:20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
Mt 23:21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
Mt 23:22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
Albert Barnes (quoted below) soundly refutes the idea that Jesus contradicted the Law regarding oaths. It is fully explained and those who want the truth cannot miss it. No further comment is needed.
Verse 33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself. Christ here proceeds to correct another false interpretation of the law. The law respecting oaths is found in Le 19:12 De 23:23. By those laws, men were forbid to perjure themselves, or to forswear, that is, swear falsely.
Perform unto the Lord. Perform literally, really, and religiously, what is promised in an oath.
Thine oaths. An oath is a solemn affirmation, or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed, and imprecating his vengeance, and renouncing his favour, if what is affirmed is false. A false oath is called perjury; or, as in this place, forswearing.
It appears, however, from this passage, as well as from the ancient writings of the Jewish Rabbins, that while they professedly adhered to the law, they had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which they by no means considered as binding. For example, they would swear by the temple, by the head, by heaven, by the earth. So long as they kept from swearing by the name Jehovah, and so long as they observed the oaths publicly taken, they seemed to consider all others as allowable, and allowedly broken. This is the abuse which Christ wished to correct. It was the practice of swearing in common conversation, and especially swearing by created things. To do this, he said that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his peculiar abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control, that we could not make one hair white or black. To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God; and could not be without guilt.
Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion, and by everything, that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Mt 26:63,64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath. See Ro 1:9 9:1 Ga 1:20 Heb 6:16. Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the law of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Ex 22:11 Le 5:1 Nu 5:19 De 29:12,14.
|
