Does the New Testament say Jesus considered the law of Moses to be abrogated?
The Old Testament starts off with five books that it calls the Torah meaning
the Law of Moses. Christians claim that the moral directives of that law still
stand but we don't need to keep the non-moral rules about feasts and stoning
people to death. They say God revealed the Law and as Jesus came to save us he
fulfilled the law and made it obsolete.
The New Testament never says that the horrifying punishment laws of the Torah,
and the other rules laid down by God through Moses have been done away. Jesus
never apologised for regarding those texts as God's righteous and just word.
Apostate Jews would have challenged him for this so he must have just walked
away.
Those who dispute that the moral and justice regulations are still validated must be answered.
Jesus said that he didn't come to do away with these laws but to make them more
severe (Matthew 5:17). He said that to sum up the law was to advocate the great
commandment of loving God with all your power and ultimately, while loving your
neighbour. You love your neighbour for God so that it is really God you love.
This being so it follows that each part of the Law is equally important and each
act must be done with the right inner disposition so merely external obedience
is useless.
Yet Christians claim that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John repudiate
the Law, punishment laws, ceremony laws and so on and all.
The Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus said he didn’t come to do away with the
Law but to perfect it and make it better so we can consider the matter closed.
Some scholars and Christians say that Jesus was only saying that about the Jews.
If you had Jewish blood in you, you had to keep the Law or Torah. Karen
Armstrong claims that the apostle Paul never suggested at all that the Jews
should just ignore this Jewish Law (page 62, The Bible, The Biography, Karen
Armstrong, Atlantic Books, London, 2007). She writes in her book that Paul
valued Judaism and the covenant it had with God that makes Jews to be the sons
of God. And she says also that the Judaizers or Jewish Christians Paul was
condemning so viciously and vigorously in his letters were those who wished for
Gentiles to be circumcised and therefore made Jews and accordingly be required
to keep the whole Law perfectly.
Even if she is right, it follows that the Church and Christian nations should
enable and encourage Jews and Jews who believe in Christ to obey the bloodier
parts of the Law, including the parts where God demands that sinners such as
adulterers should be cruelly put to death by stoning. She would say that
non-Jewish believers in Christ being allowed to ignore the Law does not mean
that the Law is to be disobeyed but only that the Law does not apply to them.
Their being allowed to disobey it doesn't mean it was abolished. A law can only
be abolished for you if it applies to you and has authority over you in the
first place.
So anyway Jesus did not do away with the Law at all. That much is certain. If
the Law is bad or draconian, we need a Jesus who says so not one who says it is
right and who says it needs fulfilment for fulfilment rules out just dropping
rules or cherry-picking the law. What if Jesus did away with the stoning laws?
Ceasing to put the rules into practice does not mean that they are being
rejected. Jesus is saying they are so holy that they have been fulfilled so we
may not practice them. Even if that is not very coherent the intention is still
to say the laws are in fact good and right.
Let us go on.
All agree that Jesus Christ sought to restore the spirit of the law, in other
words its real meaning. They think that Jesus was of the opinion that the Jews
were taking many of its rules out of context and making them harder than they
were meant to be. See how this works in relation say to the killing of
homosexuals by stoning. Even if you can’t kill them this way you have to wish
you can and could purge them from your midst. There is no way spirit of the law
talk can get around that. The law is still dangerous.
· “ Luke 9:51-56 has Jesus condemning James and John for wanting fire to come
down from Heaven to consume those who rejected their preaching. Jesus snapped
that they did not know what kind of men they were and what kind of spirit or
personality was in them for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives
but to save them.”
Jesus simply meant that killing everybody that did that would mean that there
would be nobody left to follow him. James and John wanted God to do the
murdering while the Law says people are to do it for God so this section has
nothing at all to do with the Law. They reminded Jesus that Elijah had murdered
people by miraculously summoning fire from Heaven. Jesus would not have
condemned this miracle. He would also believed that this was not murder for God
willed it and would have been angry at his disciples for wanting God to kill
without caring if it was God’s will or not under the circumstances.
· “Jesus forbade self-defence which the Law allowed when he said that whoever
will protect his life will lose it (Mark 8:35).”
There are other ways to interpret this verse. It is very vague. It may refer to
the man who protects his life as being more valuable than God – who uses
forbidden methods of preserving his life. It does not mean that we should get
ourselves killed for he instructed his disciples to run away from persecution
and to do what is right for themselves for God’s sake (Matthew 10:23).
· “Jesus said the edict condoning divorce (Deuteronomy 24:14) was wrong so he
did repeal some of the rules of the Law so he must have been opposed to the
cruel ones too.”
He could have disagreed with the Law on divorce while accepting the nefarious
decrees as well. We have to accept what he never explicitly rejected to be on
the safe side.
It is not true that Jesus said the edict was wrong. The edict only recognised
that
divorce could not be stopped and it did not command it. It only regulated
it. Regulating drug abuse is not the same as approving of drug abuse.
Jesus said that Genesis forbade divorce and this was God's settled plan.
The regulation of divorce was based on how rebellious the people were and other
rules were made to deter people from the divorce mentality. Thus, he was not
changing the Old Testament law at all but only declaring that the regulation of
divorce
was only temporary. It was right under the circumstances.
Divorce for divorce and divorce for remarriage are not the same. Jesus was asked by the Jews about divorce
in relation to remarriage. Jesus said that this kind of divorce was wrong.
Suppose the law allowed divorce. It said nothing about allowing remarriage so there is
no disagreement.
Jesus said that Moses wrote the commandment regarding divorce out of
the stubbornness of the people. Moses was forced. So
even the law as it is calls divorce an evil.
· “According to our blessed Lord, the Law and the Prophets were in force until
the coming of John the Baptist for the good news is being proclaimed now (Luke
16:16).”
Whatever sense Jesus intended in this, he is not stating that the Law and the
Prophets have lost their value and significance for he must have approved of
much in them at the very least. He said they were inspired by God so he approved
of all they taught. He probably meant that the writings had served their purpose
which according to him, was preparing for his gospel. If he did not then he said
that they were bad news and had to be done away for the good news which he would
not have said for it was blasphemous and destroyed his own claim to be the
Saviour for he needed those writings to justify his claims.
A law is something that is forced on you. Jesus might have meant that the Law
must still be kept but is no longer a law for the coercive element has been
taken away. God makes keeping the Law a pleasure in which case it is a blessing
and a liberty not a law.
The best explanation for what Jesus said was that until John came there was no
divine revelation for John was a prophet of God. All there was until John came
was the Law and the Prophets. If you wanted to hear the word of God that was all
you had.
· “Luke 21:20-21 has Jesus telling his followers to abandon their country and
flee when they see it surrounded by armies.”
This is supposed to do away with the rule that the Jews must defend their
country. God commanded many holy wars. Jesus said that they will know then that
the end is nigh. When the end is nigh what is the point of fighting? And why
would they fight when they were not soldiers? I get really sick of some of the
arguments that biased Christians come up with.
· “Jesus didn’t campaign for the execution of anyone who laughed at his gospel
so the Law for the murder of apostates is abolished. Paul did not tell the
Corinthians to murder the man who committed incest though that was a capital
crime under the Law. Paul forgave the people who committed capital crimes like
homosexuality and adultery instead of asking them to submit to execution”.
The silence of the gospels does not prove that Jesus did not.
If Jesus refused to have those who mocked his gospel slaughtered then it was
because if he killed everybody who did that he would bring in no converts at all
for there would be nobody left to preach to. The Torah laid down that only
initiated believers who abnegated the faith were to be destroyed. No one was
given the right to kill those who scoff at the gospel in ignorance.
The early Jesus People were subject to enough hatred without killing people.
They had to live in peace for the greater good which was the propagation of the
gospel. When it was safe to do so some sinners might have been urged to commit
suicide in a horrible and brutal manner to satisfy the Law.
The early Jesus People had no facility for eradicating them.
The way the man was described by Paul as being handed over to Satan for the
destruction of his body would suggest that the man was put on death row or that
Christians were trying to kill him by their prayers. A religion ceasing to
stone people to death does not mean they are dropping the death
penalty. They can look for another way to do it. I am
thinking here of how Peter with a spell murdered Anna and Sapphira.
ACTS DOES NOT TEACH ABOLITION DOCTRINE
If the Law were abolished we would expect to read about it in the book of the
Acts of the Apostles. This book claims to report the developments and adjusting
of the disciples of Christ. And we don’t.
The Law said that the Lord dwelt on the Ark of the Covenant so he could dwell in
Temples made with human hands. In Acts we read that God does not do this (7:48;
17:24). Some say that this proves that the Law is abolished. If that is so then
God who once dwelt in the Temple does so no more. But this would be a
contradiction and not an abolition. The Bible teaches that God is always the
same and that he dwells everywhere. If he is not in the Temple like he is
everywhere then he is not God. He is forcing the Jews to think that he is in the
Temple where he promised to live and he is not there at all.
One answer to this reasoning is that God only promised to dwell on the Ark of
the Covenant and so when the Ark was placed in the holy of holies, a special
chamber in the Temple, God was in the temple. His special presence was in the
Temple though he was everywhere else too. The Ark had been lost to the Temple
for centuries indicating that God was in the Temple no more except in the normal
way. It was true when Paul said what he said that God was not in the Temple for
the Ark was absent. This solution avoids the notion of a change of Law.
Perhaps Paul, by saying that God does not live in human Temples has the idea of
a God who is confined to one place at a time in mind and he is repudiating it.
· “There is no record in the Book of Acts or anywhere in the New Testament
about Christians carrying out the Mosiac Law. It does not say they are binding
therefore they are not.”
All that means is that they haven’t said. It does not mean that they didn’t see
them as binding.
They might not have carried out the more evil laws for they may not have been able
to. They were a persecuted and detested sect.
And finally Acts does say that they adhered to the Law.
Stephen, the first Christian martyr, was arraigned before the outraged Jews for
allegedly saying that Jesus will change the institutions and commandments of
Moses’ Law (Acts 6:14). Christians zoom in on Stephen’s not defending himself
against this accusation. They argue that it demonstrates that it was true. But
Stephen answered them. Acts says that his long speech was his answer. And that
speech attests to God giving Moses the Law and establishing circumcision and to
the Temple being sacred. These two facts prove that Stephen was accused in the
wrong. Stephen may not have said that straight out that he was convinced of the
current force of the Law. If anybody asks me, “Do you believe in the Law as an
authority?” And I say, “Moses got it from God and I believe in God” I am
obviously implying that I do believe in it. I am not saying no. I am saying,
“Yes, I am not going to dispute what God reveals”. Stephen, following the Lord
Jesus, taught that the Law must still be obeyed. Luke, the author of Acts, fully
approved of Stephen’s doctrine because he praised his for being full of grace
and gifted with miraculous powers (Acts 6:8,10). He stated that Stephen’s
teaching was inspired by the Holy Spirit (6:10) meaning that Stephen was a
prophet, and true prophets cannot err in religious matters.
Acts 16 has the apostle Paul putting up with a spirit medium for days before he
exorcises her. This alleged to infer that he approved of her antics indicating
the abolition of the Law which forbade witchcraft and spiritualism. But maybe
Paul had been praying to God to take away the spirit without anything happening
all along. When God told him that prayer was to be answered Paul turned on the
Spirit and expelled it. If he was then the episode does not tell us anything
about the status of the Law in his sight.
Acts says that Jesus saved sinners with his blood, that is, by dying on the
cross. That implies that it is wrong to sacrifice animals for sins or does it?
It does not for a man who pays his fine can pay a superfluous one for some
benevolent reason. And if animal sacrifice was commanded by God it would mean
that if God made provision for sacrifice it only means that animal sacrifice is
now unnecessary not wrong.
The Christians according to Acts lived a communistic way of life. They shared
all things together. There is a different way presupposed in the Torah. This
does not prove the Torah is not for Christians because the Torah only commands
what is to be done in a non-communistic society and neither allows or forbids
communism. The family unite which the Torah upheld was like a communist society.
The way was cleared for the emergence of a Church that considered itself to be a
family and behaved as one.
Finally, Jesus and Christianity cannot be severed from the violent laws and overtone of the Old Testament. Jesus' warning that sinners go to Gehenna to be eaten by worms and punished by he who can destroy body and soul there and his warning that he would send them there is actually overall worse than the savage Old Testament laws about stoning all put together. An abrogation does not end that link for it is not admitting the laws and teachings are evil. It is repudiation that we need. And the laws being applied a different way is not an abrogation - the idea is that Jesus will punish himself and has taken care of some of the laws for us.