|
There are a number of passages in the Bible that cause some to think Jesus contradicted the Law. Amazingly, even though Jesus was under the Law and expected to follow it (by God and the people) some insist that he had the right to contradict it and did so on numerous occasions. While I would not argue against the idea that he taught some things that were new, i.e., not intended for the Jews but for the kingdom to come, I do contend that all of his teachings were in harmony with the Law. The Law actually foretold of the kingdom to come with its new law (Jer. 31:31, 32). Therefore, when Jesus taught regarding things pertaining to the kingdom he was not contradicting the Law but fulfilling it (Matt. 5:17-19).
It is important that we properly interpret Jesus' teachings. We must not insist he taught something that was contrary to his mission and against his nature, which would have him committing sin. To determine whether or not something Jesus taught was intended for the future, and when it was applicable, we must consider the context. From a study of the context of Matthew 19:3-12 there can be no doubt that Jesus' teaching was directed to the Jews and was therefore applicable to them. With this as a foundation we are left to determine whether we are willing to accept that Jesus flatly contradicted the Law of God (Deut. 24:1-4). Did he really tell them, "Moses taught you one thing but I'm now changing it"? If Jesus was teaching that those divorced, rather than those merely "put away" (as the text says), were committing adultery in marrying another then at that point millions of people around the world were suddenly committing sin and the only way for many to remedy the problem was to divorce and live celibate. But doesn't that contradict what Paul taught by inspiration? He classified "forbidding to marry" as "doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1-3). He also said to let both men and women have a spouse so they could avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:1, 2). In addition, to any who might object, he said to "let them marry" (1 Cor. 7:8, 9, 27, 28). Yet some insist that both Jesus and Paul taught that one who was divorced must remain celibate.
Jesus changed the Law after his death (at which time all was fulfilled, Matt. 5:17-19; John 19:30) as the apostles taught and wrote by inspiration. If Jesus had intended on changing the law regarding who has a right to a marriage would he not have inspired his apostles to teach it rather than contradict the Law by teaching it himself? Why change it at all? If the divorce law was ever needed, because of hardness of heart or whatever, at what point did it cease to be needed? God gave the divorce law for man's benefit. It ended the marriage so the woman could "go be another man's wife" rather than be homeless and destitute. God himself is a divorcée and the spouse he legally divorced (Jer. 3:8) was allowed to marry another (Romans 7:4).
An evangelist's greatest nightmare is to teach a married couple and, during his inquision (that he thinks he is required to perform), he learns that they have been divorced. He thinks he is then required to tell them they are living in adultery and must repent--evidenced by divorcing and living celibate. (This happens about 50% of the time.) Who benefits from this teaching? The devil who the doctrine is named after (1 Tim. 4:1-3)? There is no way to accurately estimate how many have sought salvation but have been driven from Christ by this unreasonable and unscriptural demand, or how many churches have been split by men who promote this doctrine.
|
