How Jesus Taught Us To Observe God's Law

I have another blog series called, A Literary Look at the Gospels, where I am working my way through the Gospels passage by passage in an effort to better understand what these teachings and stories meant to the authors and their faith communities.  In the course of this study I have been quite excited by the themes of acceptance and inclusion I have been discovering in the second chapter of Mark.  The other thing I have found quite enlightening there is the Gospel's presentation of Jesus' teaching on how to observe Torah, Old Testament law.  I believe that this teaching has a lot to say to modern Christians on how to faithfully approach laws written in the Old Testament.  It also speaks to their relevance to both our own Christian practice and how, in regard to these laws, we view and treat others, so much so that I felt it deserved some additional discussion on its own outside of that study series.

Jesus, as presented in the Gospels, was not one for imposing rules and regulations. He stated that all the Commandments and the Law could be fulfilled through the commandments to love God and to love our neighbour. The only addition he is given as adding is to love others as he has loved us. This would seem to be a pretty clear direction, but Christianity has still struggled over the years with how to approach the holiness and purity regulations found in the Old Testament. 

Some, laws like the dietary regulations, have been clearly negated in the New Testament. Faithful Jews to this day honour the ban on eating pork and shellfish, but I do not know of any Christian groups who believe they should do likewise. In the tenth chapter of Acts, Peter has a vision were God presents him with a variety of animals and reptiles restricted by the purity laws and commands him to kill and eat. When Peter balks at breaking the law and eating that which it identifies as unclean, God replies, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” (Acts 10:15 NIV) Later in the chapter, Peter interprets this vision as extending beyond food to people. He is asked to go to the home of Cornelius, a Gentile. While there, he tells the crowd that has gathered outside, “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean." (Acts 10:28 NIV).

The letters of Paul included in the New Testament were written at a time when there was much debate in the early Christian community around what laws they had to follow.  Did Gentile members need to be circumcised as required by the law?  Could people eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols before going on sale at the marketplace?

Paul, who was formerly a Pharisee and a strict legalist, responded to these issues with the position that these laws were part of the Old Covenant, the old agreement with God.  Jesus had fulfilled and completed our requirements under this old contract making them null and void.   The Old Covenant of law is replaced with a New Covenant of grace and faith.  In fact, he criticized those in the Christian movement who, by continuing to call for strict adherence to the purity laws, were rejecting the freedom of Christ to remain "slaves to the law".  I've included a few of Paul's statements to this effect below

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.  And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1NIV)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Romans 10:4 KJV) 

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. (1 Corinth. 10:23 KJV) 

For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)

Returning to the Gospels, Jesus is presented as breaking the purity laws, or the Rabbinical strictures on how to observe these laws, at various points: he heals and works on the Sabbath, he touches lepers, he and his disciples are criticized for not following the proper washing practices before meals, and at one point he negates the dietary laws by telling his disciples to eat anything put before them without question while a guest in someone's home on their travels to spread his message.

However, the Gospels also relate a statement by Jesus that seems to contradict both Paul's theology and Jesus' actions listed above.  In the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is presented as stating that the law will remain in effect until heaven and earth pass away.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20 NIV)

Given this, modern Christianity displays a wide range of attitudes on how to be faithful to the legal tradition of Torah. Some Christians, taking their queue from Paul, see all Old Testament law as void, something that no longer bears any relevance to Christian practice.  Others see the law as a source of general guidance, but not something we are strictly bound to.  At the other end of the spectrum are Christians who contend that all Old Testament laws are still in play with the exception of those, like the dietary regulations, which were explicitly exempted in the New Testament.  For them, the transgression of any of these laws requires either absolution by a Priest (if one is of the Catholic persuasion), or a heartfelt request for forgiveness to God calling on Jesus blood and sacrifice as payment for their sin and accompanied by a promise to no longer engage in the sinful practice or lifestyle.

Another take, more in the middle and popular among many Christian denominations and groups, is where most of the law is considered void with the exception of those which religious authority has deemed still reflective of God's will.  The authority who sets this distinction may be the traditions of their denomination or cultural group, or may be current church or religious leaders.  Invariably, the laws chosen as still in effect are reflective of the group's own cultural bias and prejudices.  Laws such as the ban on trimming the sides of one's beard, wearing clothing woven from more than one material, or planting more than one kind of seed in one's field do not make the list.  Likewise with the restriction on loaning money at interest and the requirement to take anyone who becomes destitute into your home and providing for their needs, or the commandment not to be prejudiced against foreigners or refugees.

To make things somewhat confusing, these various groups and denominations look to different authorities for the determination of which laws are still in effect and so hold different views on which ones when broken constitute a sin.  A recent example would be the case of a county clerk in Kentucky who gained some notoriety by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples in defiance of Federal law because her religious community felt that it was against, "God's law".  What is particularly relevant here is that, while many Christians, including Christian leaders and politicians belonging to groups with similar views, held rallies outside her workplace to support her, one unexpected group came to protest against her.  Members of the Westboro Baptist Church came to the rallies with signs to condemn her as an unrepentant adulteress and tell the world she was going to hell.  This woman had divorced and remarried and so the man she was living with, in their eyes, was not her husband according to God's law.  In fact, the woman had divorced and remarried a number of times and had conceived a child with one future husband before she had divorced her then current one.  That, to the Westboro Baptists, could be forgiven, but to continue in a lifestyle of unrepentant adultery by living with a man who was not the first she said vows with was not.

The concept of following religious authority to dictate how to observe religious law and Jesus' alternative is the topic that I find addressed in the passage from the second chapter of Mark that I talked about in the opening.  Much of my observations stem from a study of Mark 2:23-28 in my blog, Lord of the Sabbath.

This passage follows a number of stories where Jesus is shown in conflict and disagreement with the Pharisees.  The stories are used to contrast the way, the teaching, of the Pharisees with the new way of Jesus.  To understand the difference being presented we need to understand something of the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were the dominant sect in Judaism in the time of Jesus.  Judaism is primarily concerned with the Covenant with God and upholding this covenant through the observance of Torah.  The Pharisees were particularly zealous in following Torah to the letter.  They created numerous regulations and requirements on how to put Torah into practice.  Much of this legalism was based on the Mishnah, a redaction of the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period (536 BCE – 70 CE). The Mishnah is comprised of examples of Rabbinical judgments that were used to determine the correct way to carry out laws recorded in the Torah.  Each Rabbi would teach both the collected regulations, the "yoke", of his teacher and the line of teachers before him, as well as his own leading to an ever increasing body of rules to clarify and break down in ever increasing levels of minutiae the proper observance of Torah. These regulations set standards on what it meant to follow laws like the command to rest on the Sabbath. They defined for the observant Jew what should be considered "work" and therefore restricted on the Sabbath, what constituted the beginning and end of the Sabbath when these restrictions applied, and what exemptions were allowed. 

The reasoning behind this zeal was noble and stemmed from a desire to make Isreal great by ensuring that the people upheld their part of the Covenant.  This would have been particularly important at the time when the Gospel of Mark was written which scholars date as being close to the occupation by Rome and the destruction of the Temple. 

Judaic thought of the time, as represented by the Pharisees, was one of a community of exclusive holiness. Only by the people becoming more holy, purging themselves of the unclean, and fulfilling their side of the covenant through strict adherence to the law, would God fulfil his side and drive out their oppressors and make them a nation again. This could only be accomplished through increased zeal in meeting the letter of the law, for the purity and holiness regulations and rituals as a community. This mindset demanded the exclusion and censuring of those who did not, or could not, meet these practices to the level demanded. We see this in the Gospel stories through the exclusion and condemnation of the disabled, the ill, and those not tithing or meeting the purity practices and rituals, exactly the people the Gospel stories show Jesus reaching out to and making a point of including.

A theology similar to that of the Pharisees exists among some modern Christian groups and religious leaders, particularly in the United States.  Many see their country as inheriting the Old Covenant between Israel and God.  They interpret economic downturn and tragedies such as natural disasters and 9/11 as the withdrawal of God's favour due to what they see as the moral decline of the nation.  The way to make their country, "great again", is to enforce across the country the purity laws that they subscribe to through exclusion, persecution, and civil laws targeting those who do not practice these laws and against those of other religions.

In an article at Patheos.com, Morgan Guyton describes the disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees as a difference between consequentialist and deontological ethics. In consequentialist ethics, you decide what to do on the basis of what will cause the most good and least harm.  In deontological ethics, you find an authority figure to give you a duty to obey.  The more unreasonable the duty, the more faithful the observance.

People with deontological ethics only feel assured that they are submitting fully to an authority if they perform duties that make no sense from a consequentialist perspective. The duty must be opaque to be fully deontological. Deontological ethics says that unless I do what makes no sense to me, then my sense is my authority rather than the Bible.

In regards to this difference in ethics in Jesus interaction with the Pharisees, Guyton explains:

For the Pharisees, the Sabbath is an opaque duty. The test of whether you’re honoring the Sabbath or not is whether you avoid doing even virtuous deeds for the sake of honoring God. When Jesus puts the Sabbath in terms of “doing good or doing harm,” he’s making the Sabbath consequentialist rather than deontological. The Pharisees would say that Jesus is offering a false choice. The cessation of work on the Sabbath is a duty. Making the Sabbath pragmatic destroys the deontological authority of the law.

Jesus makes his consequentialist stance explicit when he says, “The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath, and the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). So to me, respecting Jesus’ lordship as the chief interpreter of scripture means reading it consequentially rather than deontologically. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2016/05/12/why-were-ethically-incomprehensible-to-each-other/

This perspective also sheds light on some otherwise confusing behaviour by many Christians in the United States that belong to groups that have been labelled "Evangelical" or part of the "Religious Right".  A large component of this group along with many of their leaders have put their support behind the Republican Nominee Donald Trump.  Why would Christians who trumpet "family values" endorse for President a man who has had multiple divorces and boasts about having affairs while married?  Why would they endorse someone who owns casinos and regularly lies about things like donating money to veterans?

One reason may be the authoritarian leadership style of this man which is similar to that of many of their own religious leaders, a style which they have learned to respect and follow.  A PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst named Matthew MacWilliams explored the lure of authoritarianism as a factor in Donald Trump's popularity in his dissertation research.

MacWilliams studies authoritarianism — not actual dictators, but rather a psychological profile of individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders. People who score high in authoritarianism, when they feel threatened, look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear.

Trump embodies the classic authoritarian leadership style: simple, powerful, and punitive

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

Donald Trump capitalizes on people's fears.  He characterizes the "average citizen", the white christian majority, as under attack and provides scapegoats and direct puntive solutions.  Mexicans take our jobs and create crime.  The solution is to build a wall.  Muslims are a terrorist threat.  The solution is to ban Muslims, including Muslim refugees, from entering the U.S.

As an authoritarian he presents himself as someone who is "right" and has firm simple views that will not be influenced by others, do not require further analysis, or consideration, and will not be comprimised by debate or the arguements of others.  This is popular among those who just want someone who will take authority and clearly and simply tell them what they need to do to meet their percieved threats without nuance or the requirement to analyze and weigh the merit of his proposals.   It appeals to those who want someone who will take away from them the responsibility and burden of thought and moral decision.

Unfortunately, these are the characteristics and methods of many of the Christian leaders that many deontological Christians seek as an authority in the practice of Christianity including which religous laws should be in effect and how they should be implemented.  Like Trump, they use fear and scapegoating to build their power.  Christianity, to them, is under attack.  Those who support respect for other cultures and religions are trying to destroy Christianity.  America's economic decline, terrorist attacks and natural disasters, are God removal of his favour and protection because the nation is failing to practice their brand of Christianity and the religious laws that reflect their own culture and prejudices.  Those of other religions and those who fail to follow these laws are to be hated, reviled, excluded, and persecuted.

Like Trump, they are not to be questioned.  Supporting positions that don't bear up to the facts or promote persecution and violence towards others is a sign of faith and trust in the belief that these leaders are chosen and directed by God.  Like the Pharisees, the more obscure and nonsensible the command, the more faith it shows to follow.  If you can accept creationism and an earth that is only 6,000 years old, facts and statistics have no relevence.  This is a recipe for disaster.  As Voltaire is famous for saying, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities".

A further analysis of authoritarianism and evangelicalism can be found in the following article.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2016/04/evangelical-authoritarianism-and-fear-in-america-cruztrump-two-christian-failures-one-authoritarian-ethos/

Jesus did not have an authoritarian leaderhip style.  He also did not give us a list of which laws we should accept or reject.  There were incidents were he acted in defiance of some laws and particularly the way the Pharisees decreed they should be practised, but, as we saw in the passage from the fifth chapter of Matthew, he did not call for the law to be discarded.

He also did not give us regulations or rules prescribing how Christianity should be practiced.  His teaching style was to present stories and parables that showed the world from a different perspective, one where God is seen as primarily loving and compassionate.  He invites the listener to repond to others in terms of this love in one's practice of the law and beyond.  This is true as well in the Gospel stories of Jesus' interaction with others and debate with the Pharisees.  It is more than consequential, what will result in the most good and the least harm.  It is compassionate, based on emulating the love and acceptance of God by all which Jesus characterized.

In not giving us the burden of his own authoritative list of rules and regulations, Jesus gave us what may be a greater burden, responsibility.  We are called on not to shirk the task of moral decision on authority, but to take the risk ourselves of getting it wrong and the responsibility and accountability that goes with it on our own shoulders.  However, he has promised that as Christians we do not shoulder that burden alone.  He has sent us the Holy Spirit, the spirit of God's wisdom, compassion, and love, to help us judge the loving and compassionate way we should practice, or not practice, religious law in each situation.  This, I believe, is Jesus' teaching on the Law we need to emphasise today.

The Deification of Jesus: Matthew Part 1

These series of posts are a non-literalist Christian's exploration of images of Jesus as Divine in Christianity and the New Testament. I am examining where these images came from and the reasons they were created. This is also an investigation of these image's meanings to those who created them and what meaning they may hold for myself and others today.


I began the analysis of images of Jesus in the New Testament with the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, the book of Mark. Like the other Synoptic Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus is portrayed as considering himself the Messiah, the future King of the Jews of the Messianic Age, but not as Divine, or somehow equal to God. There are, however, descriptions of him able to access special favor with God, and as such God would perform miracles and mighty deeds at his request. There is also mention of special abilities due to his intimacy with God.

In this post I move to the Gospel of Matthew to investigate the images this community used to express who Jesus had become to them and to explore whether any of them portrayed Jesus as in any sense Divine, or more than human.

The first chapter begins with, "the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham". Jesus' lineage through Joseph is traced via king David to Abraham. This would seem to be done to validate him both as a true Hebrew and as a candidate for kingship. However, it would seem to be an odd way to claim his lineage if they were taking literally the Divine conception portrayed later in the book. If Joseph is only Jesus', "adoptive", father, then why claim the legitimacy of his heritage through Joseph?
Descent in Judaism at that time was patrilineal and did not change to matrilineal descent until the second century. However, the tradition of adoption, taking another's child as one's own, was not strong, and considering an adopted child as an heir, or part of the lineage even less.

The evidence for adoption in the Bible is so equivocal that some have denied it was practiced in the biblical period.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0001_0_00486.html

Looking at the story of Abraham and his son Ishmael by Hagar, his wife Sarai's Egyptian handmaiden, we see that, even though Ishmael is of Abraham's seed, he is excluded from the lineage because he was not of his wife Sarai. With this in mind, it makes no sense for the community of Matthew to claim Jesus' legitimacy via his lineage through Joseph if they literally considered Joseph as only his "adoptive" father.

The whole idea of portraying Jesus as having been born by immaculate conception and therefore a demi-god seems to be a chancy thing for this mainly Jewish community.  This idea has no real precedent in Jewish Scripture, but is an idea taken from pagan mythology, particularly the Greek.  It would seem in my mind to testify to a real need to legitimize Jesus' birth and parentage.  This strongly suggests that the story that Jesus' mother Mary was found to be pregnant with Jesus before she came to live in Joseph's household was believed to be factual by either this community or the wider Jewish community of the time.  As such, Jesus would have been considered a "Mamzer".  As Bruce Chilton, in his Book, "Rabbi Jesus", explains, this was a caste in Jewish society of Israelites of suspect parentage, born of a prohibited sexual union such as incest or with a non-Isrealite. Also called a shetuqi or "silenced one" in the Mishnah at a later period, one without a voice in the public congregations of Israel.

"No one born of a forbidden marriage" (footnote - Or one of illegitimate birth) "nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD," (Deuteronomy 23:3 NIV The Holy Bible)

As investigated in earlier posts, Jesus had another problem with the legitimacy of his teaching.   Because he was not a recognized Rabbi who had been certified by semicha, rabbinic ordination, he did not by Jewish tradition have, s'mikhahto, "authority" to give his own teaching and interpret Scripture.  If he was also suspect of being Mamzer, his lack of the right to give his own teaching would be overshadowed by not having any legitimate voice in the public congregations of Israel at all.