"But I Say Unto You"

Let us carefully study Jesus’ statement, from which some have concluded that he changed the Law from the idea that a woman who has been divorced may marry another, to the idea that anyone who has been divorced may not marry another. The issue involves the question, "Did Jesus contradict Moses?” Most will agree that Jesus did not speak contrary to Moses, who taught what was inspired of God. Yet many are confused about what Jesus meant when he said, “but I say unto you.” To understand him one must carefully examine the text, commonly known as The Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:20 is a key passage that helps us understand what Jesus was meaning when he said “but I say unto you.

For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus stressed that righteousness is necessary to be part of the kingdom. He made it clear that this righteousness must be greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees. In the previous two verses Jesus made it clear that he was not going to change the Law, and now he finishes setting the stage, seeking to alleviate the possibility of present and future misunderstandings of what he is about to say. Nevertheless, Jesus addressed a number of things in his Sermon on the Mount that have been misunderstood and misapplied by careless Bible students.

When Jesus said “but I say unto you” what did he mean? There are two possibilities: 1) he took issue with what Moses’ teachings (which were God’s teachings) asserting that Moses’ law no longer applied because he was changing it (as he spoke); or 2) he took issue with the unrighteous scribes and Pharisees’ who held false notions about Moses’ teachings.

That Jesus was taking issue with the false notions (interpretations) of the Jews, rather than Moses’ or God’s teachings, is fundamental and generally accepted by scholars and teachers in the church.

Now back to Matthew 5:17-18:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Before Jesus says anything about the men’s mistreatment of wives (putting away in verses 31-32), or what has been interpreted to be “divorce and remarriage,” he makes it clear that he is not going to say anything that should be interpreted to mean that he is changing what the Law of Moses taught.

Again Jesus said:

Matthew 5:20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The above passage is important to our understanding the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount because it was the scribes and Pharisee’s, interpreters of the Law, with whom he was about to take issue.

Matthew 5:21-22: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

"Ye have heard”, from whom had they heard? It sounds like Jesus is taking issue with someone who had been saying something that was inaccurate. Moses' writings were inspired of God and therefore not something contrary to God's will. Thus, it is more probable that Jesus was referring to the interpreters of the Law.

Jesus did not set himself against the law of Moses, but against the false and pernicious interpretation of the law prevalent in his time (Albert Barnes New Testament Commentary).

Matthew 5:27-28: Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Ye have heard. Or, this is the common interpretation among the Jews. Jesus proceeds here to comment on some prevailing opinions among the Jews; to show that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was defective; and that men needed a better righteousness, or they could not be saved. He shows what he meant by that better righteousness, by showing that the common opinions of the scribes were erroneous (Albert Barnes New Testament Commentary).

Next, Jesus said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” It is probable that the Pharisees had misinterpreted this teaching to extend only to the external physical act; and that they regarded evil thoughts of affairs with another and treacherous actions against their spouse of no consequence, or as not forbidden by Moses.

Albert Barnes notes:

Our Saviour assures them that the commandment did not regard the external act merely, but the secrets of the heart, and the movements of the eye. That they who indulged a wanton desire; that they who looked on a woman to increase their lust, have already, in the sight of God, violated the commandment, and committed adultery in the heart.

With this explanation in mind it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus was expounding on the Law, rather than making new law? Thus, Jesus was not saying Moses said this, but I am changing it to this. He was saying, men have been saying this…but here is what is intended to be understood, and he made it clear how men (the unrighteous “scribes and Pharisees”) were out of harmony with it.

In this setting and with a number of issues to address, Jesus, for the first time recorded, addresses another misunderstood teaching of Moses:

Matthew 5:31: It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: (ASV).

Who was going about saying "Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:"? Moses? No. Moses’ teachings were written; therefore it must have been the scribes and Pharisees. This means Jesus was not teaching new law, which explains why there was no great negative response from the Jews who sought to kill him.

At the time of Jesus’ great discourse on the Mount the Jews were following their own traditions, know as Talmud. The Talmud resembled God’s Law, but it was different—it was new law. Jesus endeavored to bring his people back to a proper understanding of Moses’ teachings, which would involve a change in their practices. A number of the Jews evidently had in mind that Moses’ Law gave men permission to divorce a wife at will. So long as the divorce certificate was given she could be cast out like a sack of potatoes that had gone bad. But some believed the divorce had to be for a certain reason. Many in our day assume that Jesus was taking sides (exactly what the Pharisees wanted him to do) and was presenting the onlyreason or situation where a divorce actually ended the marriage and freed the parties to marry. But, Moses’ divorce text was designed to protect and free the woman regardless of any reason the hard hearted men might presume justified his actions. The men determined whether to divorce or not and whatever his actions it was not questioned by a higher authority, except God in cases where it was unjust.

In many cases, men wanted rid of a woman but chose not to actually give the woman a divorce. They would just send them out of the house, i.e., “put away.” This would avoid the financial loss of having to pay back the dowry the woman’s father gave him when they married, and it was a treacherous/adulterous act “against her,” i.e. the wife.

With the above in mind let us now consider the following:

Matthew 5:32: But I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

(The next chapter deals with the latter part of the above text.)

In the above passage, Jesus deals with one of the options that a man might select for discarding a wife. He dealt with the “legal divorce” option and then proceeded to deal with the “put away” option. This option was contrary to the command of Moses to give her a bill of divorcement “so she could go be another man’s wife” (Deut 24:1-2; Mark 10:3). Because of the men’s unfaithfulness to their wives in putting them out the house, marrying another and acting as if the marriage was nonexistent Jesus says they were committing adultery “against her” (Mark 10:11). While it may well have been sinful to divorce her legally, if she was a faithful wife, the men would commit a greater sin in merely putting her away. In doing so he rejects the command of Moses and sins against the woman as well.

By now it should be apparent to the reader that Jesus did not take sides with one of the Jewish schools of thought regarding divorce, but merely explained Moses’ teaching (Deut 24:1-4) in light of what it was intended to accomplish?