Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 4
Paul bases his marriage illustration on Jesus’ stricter teaching rather than Moses’ divorce permissions; Theodoret says Moses allowed it “because of hardness of heart”—what does this reveal about how early Christians believed Jesus relates to Moses, and how might that challenge modern instincts to treat “Bible verses” as if they all carry the same covenantal authority?
Another way to ask: What does it show about how early Christians saw Jesus compared to Moses when Jesus gives a stricter teaching than Moses did? How might that challenge the idea that all Bible verses carry the same kind of authority for Christians?

Direct Answer The transcript indicates early Christians saw Jesus’ teaching as the governing standard for believers, even when it is stricter than Moses, because Moses’ permissions were tied to Israel’s “hardness of heart.” This challenges the instinct to flatten Scripture into equal covenantal authority, since Paul explicitly uses Jesus’ marriage law to make his point rather than Moses’ divorce allowance.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot notes: “Paul bases his argument on the marriage laws given by Jesus, not on the laws given by Moses.”
  • Under Moses, divorce and remarriage could be permitted, so the illustration would not work the same way: “under the law, it was not true that a woman would be called an adulteress.”
  • Jesus’ standard is quoted as stricter: divorcing and remarrying leads to adultery (with the stated exception of sexual immorality in one citation).
  • Theodoret explains Paul knew Moses’ permission existed but chose Jesus’ teaching, since Moses gave that law “on account of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews.”
  • Theodoret ties Jesus’ view to creation: “God made one man and one woman,” so the “law concerning marriage” is rooted deeper than Mosaic concessions.
Discussion Follow-ups How should Christians decide which commands are covenantally binding today? What might it look like to read Moses through Christ rather than Christ through Moses?