Did Jesus change some of the laws of Moses? 

Did Jesus change some of the laws of Moses?

It is claimed by some that Jesus actually changed some of the laws of Moses while he was alive. This is often used to show that Jesus had authority to do so.

Had Jesus done this then he would have been in direct violation of Deuteronomy 4:2

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Jesus could not have changed any of the laws of Moses while he was alive and the old covenant was still in place.

Those that say Jesus did, in fact, change some of the laws, appeal to the sermon on the mount, and sometimes Matthew 19 in order to support their claims.

In this short study we will look at the claim and demonstrate that Jesus was not actually changing the law, but rather he was correctly interpreting the meaning of the law against the Jewish traditions that had been added to the law that were contrary to the true meaning.

So lets have a look at the claim, and where it is asserted Jesus changed the law.

During his sermon on the mount found in Matthew 5 Jesus refers to a law and then states, “but I say unto you”. It is this contrast between the law and what Jesus says that is used as evidence by those that claim Jesus changed laws.

Matthew 5:21 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: 22 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.

Notice here, Jesus says, you have heard it said. Jesus does not say that it is written.

The law clearly states though shalt not kill. That is the end of the command

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 5:17 Thou shalt not kill.

There is nothing in the law that states “and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment

It is clear that Jesus is appealing to what the Jewish traditions stated. These had been added to the command.

The judgement was a local city court that could sentence death by strangling or beheading, called the judgement. Thus Jesus is directly referring to this addition to the command.

When Jesus said but I say unto you, he explained the true nature of the command, that killing was not simply taking the life of someone as they believed it to be, as it had been interpreted. Jesus was not changing the law but expounding it, showing the true nature of it, unlike their man made understandings. Jesus showing the distinction between Judgement of the court (council) and that of God.

Jesus then shows that in order to offer the gift at the alter they should first have reconciled back to their brother.

Matthew 5:23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

The gift being an offering for their transgression against their brother. They were bringing their offerings while not first reconciling with their brother.

The trespass law in Leviticus 6 demands that there be restitution paid to the injured party and then an offering would be given.

Leviticus 6: 1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour; 3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: 4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, 5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. 6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: 7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein. 

Jesus is not changing the law but rather is teaching against the traditions, how it has been explained by the leaders. Jesus expounds and shows the true meaning of the law.

Jesus again appeals to the you have heard it said rather than it is written when it comes to adultery. Adultery was understood to be the physical act.

Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Again Jesus expounds the true meaning of the law here. Showing here that the thoughts represented by the eye, the lusts of the eye are as bad as the actions, explaining that lusting and the act of adultery lead to death (as already shown the punishment for adultery was death). Thus, Jesus uses the symbolic language of removing the eye or hand rather than lusting or physically committing adultery is better than being put to death. There is no change to the law of adultery, but rather a correct understanding of it.

Then we get a passage about divorce. This passage along with a similar passage in Matthew 19 are probably the most used by those asserting Jesus changed laws. in order to answer this we will need to look at both passages.

Yet again we must note that it states it hath been said, rather than it is written. The contrast between the actual law that was written and the later traditions of the law is clear.

Matthew 5: 31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

The law allowed a man to put away his wife and give her a bill of divorcement. This law is found in Deuteronomy 24:1

Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

However, the law was misapplied. The Jews were giving a bill of divorcement for any reason that they wanted. There was contentions over what the law meant by uncleanness, what reasons a man could put away his wife and give a bill of divorcement.

In Matthew 19 , where this question is directly brought up by the pharisees and asked of Jesus we see that the Pharisees had come to try to tempt Jesus, this was something they tried many times to do, to catch him saying something contrary to what the law stated. They asked him if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.

Matthew 19:1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; 2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there 3The Pharisees also came unto him,  tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 

This meaning they wanted to see if Jesus would say that a man and woman could get a divorce for any reason at all.

Jesus appeals to what God had brought together no man should separate. Divorce was not a thing from the beginning. Man and woman became one when they were married.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The Pharisees asked Jesus why the law allowed divorce.

Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

So Jesus explains that the reason was because of the hardness of their hearts that this was permitted, but again appeals to the beginning, showing that although it was lawful, it was not the original intention for divorce but only was allowed because of their own hardness of heart.

Matthew 19: 8  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Jesus then explains what Deuteronomy 24:1 actually meant. It did not, in fact, allow divorce for any reason but rather only because of fornication.

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Jesus was giving the true interpretation of the law itself.

Those that did divorce for any other reason, even if it was allowed by the Jewish leaders and courts, were not doing so legally, as the law did not permit the Jews to divorce for any reason.

Jesus also stated this in the sermon on the mount

Matthew 5: 31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Now, the word fornication here in this verse should not be understood as sexual immorality as some translations have rendered it.

Matthew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Fornication in this context does not refer to human adultery, rather it actually means idolatry or the following after other gods, committing spiritual adultery as committing adultery from God

When the KJV was translated in the 17th Century, fornication had a definition that meant this:

KJV Dictionary Definition: fornicated

fornicated

FORN’ICATED, a. L. fornicatus, from fornix, an arch. Arched; vaulted like an oven or furnace.

fornication

FORNICA’TION, n. L. fornicatio.

1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.

2. Adultery. Matt. 5.

3. Incest. 1Cor. 5.

4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2Chron. 21. Rev. 19.

The Greek word πορνεία porneia can also mean idolatry

This is shown perfectly in Revelation 17 where the kings of the earth are said to have committed fornication with the great whore, they have followed after “her”.

Revelation 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Thus Jesus explains that the law only permitted divorce if there was “fornication” in other words someone was forsaking God and following after and worshipping other gods, then it was permitted to divorce. This is the correct understanding of the law in Deuteronomy.

The word used in Deuteronomy 24 is the Hebrew  עֶרְוָה  ervah which means nakedness. In context that nakedness can mean shame. The nakedness, the shame of the “wife” is her fornication with another god. 

The words of Jesus after this show that anyone that was simply divorcing for any other reason was actually not divorced and so when the person they divorced remarried they were actually now committing adultery as they were still married to their original partner, and the one who had put them away and then remarried were causing themselves to commit adultery, still being married to their previous partner.

Jesus did not charge the law on divorce, he correctly interpreted it the way in which it was meant in Deuteronomy.

Lets have a look at some of the other laws Jesus supposedly changed.

Again, in each statement by Jesus he repeats you have heard and but I say.

Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

There is no law that says to hate hate your enemies. The law only says to love your neighbour.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

The statement that they had heard regarding hating their enemies had been added to the law.

Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

In Luke10:29  (The parable of the good Samaritan)Jesus is asked who are our neighbours. Jesus explains through the parable that the neighbour is not necessarily one who is of their brethren.

Paul also makes a similar statement regarding enemies and how they should be treated. 

Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

Jesus was showing that the added traditions to the law were in fact incorrect. Jesus was directly opposing the traditions which Jesus actually stated meant the commands of God were transgressed. 

Matthew 15: 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Matthew 15:4  For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

Matthew 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membershiphere