CONTENTS

JESUS DISAGREES WITH MOSES



        Have you ever run into one of those people who was so effective with words that he could say one thing and mean entirely the opposite? Perhaps it was a back-handed complement. You know that somehow you were insulted, but you can't explain how. Your friends, however, don't understand what your problem is. Or, maybe it was an apology. Your friends tell you that it was a heart-felt apology, but you somehow feel that the apology made you guilty of what was being apologized for.
        Shakespeare must have been excellent at this subtlety. His oration for Mark Anthony in the play Julius Caesar demonstrates this ability. "Friends, Romans and countrymen," the oration starts, "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." Yet, by the time Mark Anthony is finished, not only are the rabble in the play sufficiently roused, but so is the audience, wanting to kill Brutis for having the audacity to assassinate Caesar.
        The Jesus portrayed in Matthew's gospel was also this crafty. He starts out saying, "Think not that I have come to destroy the law and the prophets. I have not come to destroy them but to fulfill them." The parallel between this statement, and the opening of Mark Anthony's speech is so amazing that you could easily believe Shakespeare learned this form of double talk by studying Matthew.
        Some will object to that statement. "No, Jesus meant what he said, that he didn't want to undo or destroy the law and the prophets!" To a certain extent, this is true. Jesus' teachings, in this passage, did indeed fulfill the law and the prophets. The law and the prophets attempted to define what was acceptable to God. Jesus' version takes the issue to a much higher plane. But, look at what is done to Moses in the process.
        After making this introduction, Matthew has Jesus present six teachings that start with the introduction, "You have heard that the ancients were told..." and conclude with Jesus' version proceeded with, "but I say unto you..." What are these "You have heard's?" Two of them came out of the ten commandments, specifically, the sixth, "You shall not murder;" and the seventh, "You shall not commit adultery." According to the Exodus account, these commandments were so important that God physically came down to the mountain and stood beside Moses as he recited them to the Hebrews. Again, according to the Exodus account, these commandments were so important that God inscribed them on stone with his very own finger and commanded Moses to keep these tablets of stone in the arc of the covenant which was kept in the "holy of holies," or the inner-most part of the temple where only the most sacred things were kept. But Jesus, according to Matthew, superseded them! If we remove the subtlety of this speech, we find Matthew's Jesus saying, "...but I, Jesus of Nazareth, over-rule Moses and say this instead."
        It is true that Jesus didn't contradict these commandments as much as he reapplied them to the desires of men. Murder is not just what you do to another person, it includes your attitude toward that person as well. Adultery is not a physical action, it includes your lust for another whether that lust is acted on or not. In that context, there might not be much of a contradiction there. However, there are the other four teachings which begin with "You have heard that the ancients were told..."
        Teaching number five concerns that ancient definition of justice, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Jesus totally contradicts this one by demanding that we turn the other cheek. Yet, Moses presents God as providing this definition of justice not just once, but four times. That's right. Each time that Moses presents this definition of justice, he proceeds the definition with the words, "The Lord spoke unto Moses, instructing him to tell the Hebrews..." or something to this effect.
        Okay, maybe Moses was providing direction for courts while Jesus was instructing individuals. But what about the other three?
        Moses allows oaths, that is swearing by something, such as "On my mother's grave, I swear to you..." Jesus refuses the right to make any such oath, but commands us to let a simple yes or no suffice.
        Moses commanded us to hate our enemies. Jesus, in total contradiction, commanded us not only to love our enemies, but to pray for them as well.
        Finally, Moses allows divorce but Jesus says that any divorce condemns the divorced to a life of adultery, that is unless that person has already been unfaithful. I know that there is much controversy concerning this one. No, I do not believe that Jesus would refuse divorce today, especially if the reason for that divorce was abuse. Also, today, with the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS, infidelity might be considered another form of abuse. However, it should be pointed out that Jesus was not allowing divorce in the case of marital infidelity. He was only admitting the obvious. You cannot cause another to commit adultery if they are already guilty of it. And, when he says that the person who marries someone divorced becomes guilty of adultery, he doesn't qualify that by saying unless that person was divorced because of adultery.

        Matthew was not a subtle as it appears at first glance. The further along we read in this section of the sermon on the mount, the more obvious Matthew's total disregard for Moses becomes. If we leave this section of scripture believing that Jesus had the highest respect for Moses, it is only because we have allowed ourselves to be lulled by the opening statement; "Think not that I have come to destroy the law and the prophets. I have not come to destroy them but to fulfill them."

        Neither Mark nor Luke were near so subtle in their attempts to undermine Moses. Both of them had Jesus speaking in direct contradiction to the teachings of Moses, in exactly the same manner as Isaiah did. Matthew, however, was writing to Jewish believers, people that wanted to be both Jew and Christian. He could not afford the same liberties as Mark and Luke could. Either way, whether we are more inclined to believe in the Jesus of Matthew, or the Jesus of Mark and Luke, it should be obvious that Jesus had little or no use for Moses. The God Jesus presented was a better god than the God Moses revealed to us.
        If Jesus found Moses' teachings wanting, can we do any less?

PREVIOUS ESSAY    NEXT ESSAY