I wouldn't like to say that Jesus & Paul are in agreement
with everything they are silent on, and therefore an argument from
silence is VERY difficult. I am encouraged to use the argument from
silence in this case because:
1) Jesus addresses so many issues concerning marriage &
divorce (monogamy, divorce, singleness, forgiveness, compulsory
divorce for adultery), even though he was only asked about one issue
(the 'Any Cause' type of divorce), and in all of these he disagrees
with a large proportion of the Jews. This suggests to me that he is
taking the opportunity to list all the ways in which he disagrees
with their doctrines in this area.
2) This is an issue where we don't find disagreement among
different groups of Jews, which is relatively unusual. Admittedly we
don't specifically know how some of those groups DID think, but the
Schools of Hillel & Shammai and the early marriage certificates
all indicate a uniform doctrine in this area. This would make it
doubly likely that Jesus would address the issue if he disagreed
with it.
3) This isn't just a Jewish custom, but an ethical principle in
God's law as revealed to Moses. We continue to follow the ethical
principles in Moses' law, even if we don't follow the ceremonial
law. Our national laws are built on the foundation of OT ethics (eg
we have different punishments for unpremeditated and premeditated
murder - and many other egs, some in the book) and the NT continues
to use the OT as a foundation for ethics. And this is right - the OT
law is God's revelation of how to live. THe only areas where we
shouldn't follow God's law in the OT is where it is part of a
ceremonial system which Jesus outdated, or where it is a response or
partial repeal of ancient Near Eastern laws and customs (eg "eye for
eye"). |