All Anabaptists generally believe that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus introduced new laws for the new covenant, laws that uphold a higher moral standard than what is found in the Law of Moses. That premise is based on Jesus’ six statements that begin with either “You have heard that it was said” or “You have heard that the ancients were told” (Matt. 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). Jesus then always mentions a law or teaching derived from the Mosaic Law, followed by a counterpoint that always begins with the words, “But I say to you” (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). For brevity’s sake, henceforth I will refer to them as “Jesus’ six statements.”
Weaver and Zimmerman certainly hold to the common Anabaptist view of Jesus’ six statements, as indicated by two paragraphs in chapter 9 of Why Be Plain?:
In some of the next Scriptures Jesus says something like, “Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time,” meaning it was an Old Testament or Jewish law. Then Jesus says, “But I say unto you,” meaning He is now setting forth a new standard for the New Testament Christians. He then proceeds to set a higher and stricter one.
This is something many Christians of today don’t understand. They think Jesus came to remove all laws. Yes, Jesus took away the Old Testament sacrificial and sacramental laws, but instead of taking away the law of moral standards, He actually set stricter ones. For example, in the Old Testament it was wrong to commit adultery. Jesus did not take away that law. He set a higher one and said anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery! (Matt. 5:27–28) (p. 177).
Twice in the above quotation, Weaver and Zimmerman claim that Jesus set “higher” and “stricter” moral standards. But the example they give raises questions about their claim. They imply that during Old Testament times, adultery was wrong but lust was not. Lust did not become a sin until Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Is that true?
In this chapter, I will not address every subject that Weaver and Zimmerman mention in chapter 9 of Why Be Plain? Rather, I will examine—in the light of Scripture—the premise that Jesus introduced higher moral standards in His Sermon on the Mount. Much of Anabaptist theology, including much of what Weaver and Zimmerman advocate, is built on that premise.
A Caution
First, we should not automatically assume that Jesus was altering or upgrading part of the Mosaic Law just because He referenced something from the Mosaic Law and then said, “But I say to you.” It is possible that Jesus’ disciples had heard something that was incorrect or incomplete, and Jesus was correcting or completing their understanding.
For example, imagine a police officer saying to you, “You have heard that robbing a bank is illegal, but I say to you that stealing anything that belongs to another person is illegal.” You would not assume the officer was informing you about recently enacted laws that conveyed a higher moral standard. Rather, you would understand that he was elaborating on the theme of theft, helping you to understand that robbing a bank is not the only example.
Jesus once did that very thing when He was speaking to His disciples. He used the phrase “but I say to you” to communicate to them that their understanding regarding a certain topic was incomplete:
And His disciples asked Him, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” And He answered and said, “Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished” (Matt. 17:10–12, emphasis added).
Jesus fully affirmed the truth of what His disciples had heard from the scribes about the coming of Elijah, but He then revealed something the scribes had missed, namely that Malachi’s prophecy that God would send “Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord” (Mal. 4:5) was partially fulfilled by the ministry of John the Baptist. So, in this case, “But I say to you” meant, “Your understanding is partial, so let me tell you more.”
As we read Jesus’ six statements, we should not rule out the possibility that He was, in fact, not introducing new laws with higher standards but, rather, correcting their misunderstanding of old laws found in the Mosaic Law. And that is especially likely since Jesus introduced all six of His statements with these words:
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:17–20, emphasis added).
Although those introductory words don’t preclude the possibility that Jesus established standards that exceeded those found in the Law and Prophets, they do preclude the possibility that Jesus’ six statements might contradict the Law of Moses or any of the Prophets. To contradict what is found in the Law and Prophets is equivalent to abolishing what Jesus said He would not abolish.
Beyond that, if Jesus contradicted anything found in the Law and Prophets, He contradicted Himself, as He, being God, was the divine author behind both. Additionally, for God to contradict Himself or change His view on fundamental moral principles would require a change in God’s essential character, which is impossible.
As an illustration, imagine someone suggesting that during the old covenant, God wanted His people to always tell the truth, but that under the new covenant, He expects them to tell the truth only when they swear on a Bible. In all other instances, lying is acceptable. Such a suggestion would obviously amount to a divine moral downgrade. Of course, no one would accept such a suggestion as valid, as it would imply a fundamental moral character change in God Himself. God cannot lie (Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18). Thus lying (particularly when used to gain advantage over or harm someone) cannot be morally acceptable to Him, ever.
The same would be true if anyone suggested a reversal of the above example, such as teaching that under the old covenant God expected His people to tell the truth only when they swore on the Bible, but that under the new covenant, He expects them to always tell the truth, which would be a divine moral upgrade. Such a teaching would imply that, at one time, some lying was acceptable to God, which would in turn imply that God Himself has undergone moral improvement such that lying, unlike previously, is now always unacceptable to Him. For the same reason that we would reject the suggestion of a divine moral downgrade, we should also reject the suggestion of a divine moral upgrade.
As we consider Jesus’ six statements with these thoughts in mind—thoughts based on what is revealed in the entirety of Scripture—we are better able to correctly interpret them. We should be highly suspicious of any interpretation according to which Jesus altered fundamental morality, effectively pitting Himself against the Mosaic Law, His Father, and Himself.
Regarding each of the six statements, we will ask two questions.
First, when Jesus referenced something from the Law of Moses, did He accurately quote a specific commandment, or was He referencing what the scribes and Pharisees taught? In none of the six cases do we find Jesus saying, “The Law of Moses says … .” Rather, He says, “You have heard … .” So what His audience had heard may or may not have been an accurate reflection of what was taught in the Mosaic Law. And if Jesus was raising the standard, we would expect that He would correctly reference the old standard before revealing the contrasting new standard.
The second question we will ask concerning each of Jesus’ six statements is this: Was the alleged “new standard” Jesus introduced actually a standard that cannot be found in the Mosaic Law? If a standard Jesus advocated can be found in the Mosaic Law, then it was not a new standard.
Jesus’ First Statement
Let’s begin with the first of Jesus’ six statements:
You have heard that the ancients were told, “You shall not commit murder” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.” But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, “You good-for-nothing,” shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, “You fool,” shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering (Matt. 5:21–24).
Did Jesus accurately cite the Law of Moses?
Yes and no. “You shall not commit murder” is found in the Ten Commandments, but “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court” is not found anywhere in the Mosaic Law. It must have been something Jesus’ audience heard from the scribes and Pharisees, and in light of Jesus’ counterpoint, their teaching seems to have focused only on deterring murder while ignoring those things that lead to murder and that are, in themselves, lesser forms of murder. Jesus contrasted the appraisal of a human court with the appraisal of God’s court, a much stricter court that sometimes sentences the guilty to hell.
Was the standard Jesus prescribed a new standard that cannot be found in the Mosaic Law?
Consider the fact that no honest person would ever think God’s original prohibition against murder, found in the Mosaic Law, was a divine allowance to strangle someone—provided that the strangler released his chokehold just in time for his victim to gasp for air and barely survive. And if that chain of logic is traced to its logical beginning, we realize God’s prohibition of murder included a prohibition of the anger and hatred that can lead to murder, as well as venomous words that often precede murder. God doesn’t want anyone in the “murder groove.” His original prohibition against murder was also a prohibition of hatred.
Moreover, God has never wanted anyone to be in the murder groove, because He has not changed and neither have His fundamental moral standards. There was never a time prior to the Sermon on the Mount when God would have approved of an Israelite bringing an offering to the temple who had a broken relationship that could be repaired. The second-greatest commandment was to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Lev. 19:18), so it obviously superseded any obligation regarding temple offerings.
To claim that Jesus was raising the standard in Matthew 5:21–24 is to claim that the commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself is not found in the Mosaic Law, and that during the old covenant, hating one’s neighbor, and spewing hateful words at one’s neighbor were acceptable to God. We can specifically read in the Law of Moses, “You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him” (Lev. 19:17). Under the old covenant, God forbade hatred in the heart.
It is therefore safe to conclude that Jesus was not, in His first of six statements, raising the moral standard. He was simply elaborating on the existing standard that was not only evident in the Mosaic Law, but in every human conscience.
Jesus’ Second Statement
You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery”; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell (Matt. 5:27–30).
Did Jesus accurately cite the Mosaic Law’s standard?
Yes. However, as with the first statement, He elaborated on the implications of that standard.
No one would ever think that God’s prohibition against adultery was a divine allowance to engage in a sexual relationship with your neighbor’s wife, just as long as it didn’t go as far as intercourse. And if we trace that logic to its beginning, it is obvious that God’s prohibition of adultery included a prohibition of what always precedes adultery, namely lust.
God does not want anyone in the “adultery groove,” and He has never wanted anyone in that groove, because He has not changed and neither have His fundamental moral standards. There was never a time prior to the Sermon on the Mount when God would have approved of an Israelite man lusting after another man’s wife, committing adultery in his heart. In fact, lust was prohibited in the Tenth Commandment: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Ex. 20:17).
Moreover, Job, who most likely lived long before the Mosaic Law but who had a God-given conscience, said, “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1). Lust has always been a sin.
Lust, like murder, is also a violation of the commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself, a commandment found in the Mosaic Law. Therefore, lust was a sin under the old covenant.
To claim that Jesus was raising the standard in Matthew 5:27–30 is to claim that lust was acceptable to God under the Mosaic Law, which is absurd. He was not introducing a new, higher moral standard in this case.
Jesus’ Third Statement
It was said, “Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce”; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matt. 5:31–32).
Of course, the topic of divorce and remarriage is hotly debated within Christian circles. But my purpose in this chapter is to determine whether the standards Jesus set in His six statements were a moral upgrade to the Mosaic Law. So we will stick with our two questions.
Did Jesus accurately cite the Law of Moses?
No. “Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce” cannot be found anywhere in the Mosaic Law, although it is likely derived from Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jesus’ counterpoint leads us to think that He was actually citing the lax teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, who apparently emphasized the importance of divorce certificates while ignoring the sin of illegitimate divorce.
We know that many, if not the majority, of Pharisees in Jesus’ time believed that a man could divorce his wife for any reason at all, as indicated by their questioning Jesus over that very issue (see Matt. 19:3), as well as by the historical evidence for the rabbinic debate at the time regarding what constituted an “indecency” for which the Mosaic Law apparently allowed divorce (see Deut. 24:1–4).
Was the standard Jesus prescribed a new standard?
If we conclude that it was, we must assume that Jesus’ decree, “Everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” would not have been true under the Law of Moses. That would mean that under the old covenant, God allegedly found no fault with the man who divorced his wife for reasons other than unchastity, and that such a man was not guilty of making his ex-wife “commit adultery” when she remarried.
We know that under the Mosaic Law, God did find fault with the man who divorced his wife for reasons other than unchastity. We read in Malachi:
“This is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. … Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously” (Mal. 2:13–16).
In this case, God referred to divorce as “treachery” because Israelite men were breaking their marriage vows when they divorced “the wives of their youth,” apparently to marry younger women. To claim that Jesus was establishing a new, higher standard, now making divorce lawful only for unchastity, whereas it was formerly lawful for any reason is to claim that God did not speak through the prophet Malachi.
In short, Jesus was not establishing a new standard regarding lawful divorce; rather, He was elaborating on the existing standard established in the Mosaic Law (not to mention the law of conscience). This is further proved by the fact that in every other instance when Jesus equated divorce and remarriage to adultery, He clearly had the Law of Moses in view, just as in the Sermon on the Mount (see Matt. 5:17–20).
For example, when the Pharisees questioned Jesus about the lawfulness of divorcing one’s wife for any cause (Matt. 19:3–9), they were asking whether, according to the Mosaic Law, it was lawful to divorce for any cause. They even cited the Mosaic Law’s provision for divorce in their later argument. The entire conversation was framed within the Mosaic Law, and it took place during the era of the old covenant when the Mosaic Law was still in force. When Jesus said to them, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,” none of them thought to themselves that He was establishing a new, higher standard. Rather, they all naturally assumed He was elaborating on the true standard of the Mosaic Law.
This is perhaps even more obvious in Luke’s record of one of the incidents when Jesus equated divorce and remarriage to adultery:
The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail. Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery (Luke 16:16–18, emphasis added).
Clearly, the third sentence in that passage illustrates the concept presented in the first two sentences. Prior to John’s preaching the good news that the kingdom of God was at hand, anyone who preached in Israel was preaching from the Law and Prophets. John, however, had an exciting new message that became very popular, so much so that it overshadowed the Law and Prophets in many people’s minds, making them irrelevant. Jesus experienced the same misconception regarding His own preaching (Matt. 5:17).
However, Jesus strongly condemned such a view, saying that in spite of what anyone might think, it was easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail. The Law and Prophets were still very relevant. Adultery was still a sin. So was breaking a marriage covenant. Thus, “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”
This is one more proof that Jesus’ third statement in the Sermon on the Mount did not mark the establishment of a new, upgraded moral standard but simply elaborated on the old standard found in the Law of Moses.
Jesus’ Fourth Statement
Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, “You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.” But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, “Yes, yes” or “No, no”; anything beyond these is of evil” (Matt. 5:33–37).
Did Jesus accurately cite what the Mosaic Law had to say about making false vows?
Yes. Although He may not have quoted it verbatim, He certainly expressed the spirit of the Mosaic Law regarding vows (see Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21, 23). God expected the people of Israel to keep their vows.
Was Jesus establishing a new standard that can’t be found in the Mosaic Law?
Some say yes because of Jesus’ words, “But I say to you, make no oath at all.” And if that was what Jesus said, that would be a new and different standard. However, that is not what Jesus said. He said:
But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, “Yes, yes” or “No, no”; anything beyond these is of evil.
Jesus was not forbidding the making of vows and oaths, which are nothing more than promises or declarations of what one will do. What could be evil about that? In fact, saying “Yes, yes” is a vow.
Was Paul sinning when he wrote to the Corinthians, “I will come to you after I go through Macedonia. … But I will remain in Ephesus until Pentecost” (1 Cor. 16:5, 8)? Was he sinning when he promised Philemon that he would repay any debts incurred by his new convert, Onesimus (Philem. 18–19)? Are marriage vows displeasing to God? Are salvation vows by which a repentant sinner tells God he is turning from his sin forbidden?
No, Jesus was clearly forbidding the practice of making oaths by swearing by something, such as heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or one’s head. That was the common practice of the scribes and Pharisees, as revealed by Jesus’ own words about them recorded in Matthew 23:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites … blind guides, who say, “Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.” You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? And, “Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.” You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it” (Matt. 23:15–22).
Pathetically, Israel’s spiritual leaders had concocted a method that made lying lawful. One only needed to know the pharisaic intricacies of the rules governing the swearing of oaths.
So again, in this fourth statement, was Jesus establishing a new and higher standard?
Such a claim would imply that under the Mosaic Law, lying was sometimes acceptable to God—which would contradict not only the Ninth Commandment but scores of other scriptures that clearly establish God’s expectation for truthfulness. Numbers 30:2 would have to be interpreted to actually mean, “If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth, except when he does so by swearing on the temple, the altar, or heaven. In those cases, lying is acceptable.”
Moreover, although Revelation 21:8 says that all liars will be cast into the lake of fire, if you were a liar under the Law of Moses, you would be lucky that God’s standard was different back then! Additionally, the guilt felt in the consciences of every person who lied prior to the Sermon on the Mount would actually be false guilt that had no origin in God.
So far, we’ve covered four of Jesus’ six statements. We’ll cover the final two in the next chapter.
