HOME

With these words Jesus Christ reaffirms the continuing validity of the religion of the Old Testament ie. Judaism. We know that Jesus is speaking specifically of the Old Testament because he uses the expression "the law and the prophets". Have you ever wondered what people called the Bible when it was just the Old Testament? Bear in mind the break down of the books of the Old Testament in previous chapters. They are divided up between books of history, prophecy, and teaching. The Jews of Jesus’ day abbreviated this basic division into "the law and the prophets". When Jesus uses this term he is not simply re-affirming the validity of Old Testament law and Old Testament prophecy, but in fact the Old Testament writings in their entirety!

As far as Old Testament law is concerned, he is not talking just about the Ten Commandments, or the "moral laws", or the "spiritual laws". He is talking about the whole body of Old Testament law we call "Judaism" with all of its 613 biblical commandments (or mitzvahs). Needless to say, Christian scholars and religious figures view this passage with puzzlement as it threatens the whole theological foundation of their religion. It has even been suggested that its inclusion was a mistake!

When Jesus says "think not" it is reasonable to assume that he is defending himself against conservative Jews who view his teachings as an attack against the religion of the Old Testament. He did not simply pluck this thought out of thin air. In this passage he is rectifying a misconception some of his hearers are suffering under. What he said seemed to suggest that the Old Testament laws were overthrown.

What did he say that might have created this impression?

In the teachings of Jesus we find precepts of faith, grace, criticism of Jewish orthodoxy, the fact that you can’t earn your way into the Kingdom of Heaven (or earn salvation) by doing good works (Isa.64:6) and such like. Many of these ideas reflected in the Apostolic writings have given rise to exactly the same misconception on the part of modern Christians. Such people need to remember these words of Jesus, spoken right at the outset of the Sermon on the Mount, or risk making the same error. We can conclude then that Jesus said certain things which sounded like he was dispensing with the Old Testament law, and that this conclusion is wrong!

It is my contention that this passage ultimately proves the correctness of my basic thesis and that Christian theology is profoundly and irrefutably in error. If it could be shown to me that Jesus is not arguing here for the continuing validity of Biblical Judaism in Christianity I would gladly retract these views!

Let’s subject this passage to close scrutiny, looking at the various ways Christianity has tried to explain it away, and avoid the inescapable conclusion that so-called "Jewish" forms of belief and observances belong as much to Christianity as they do to Judaism. Let’s look at the novel and inventive arguments Christian theologians have resorted to in explaining what Jesus might have meant.

Conceding that the word "law" here means the law of the Old Testament, antinomians argue that Jesus in fact fulfilled the law in his life, and that therefore the law has passed away. However this argument doesn’t work, because Jesus says that the law will not pass away till "heaven and earth have passed away", and this has obviously not yet happened!

The antinomian then says "No, what this means is that the law would never have passed away if a ‘fulfilment’ of the law by Christ hadn’t occurred at some time future to the Sermon on the Mount". But even if this view was correct, which calls into question the whole thrust and meaning of the passage (ie. "by no means think that the great and wonderful laws of the Bible are done away with!"), the fact is "ALL" has not yet been accomplished eg. the Kingdom hasn’t come, nor Armageddon, nor "the man of sin", nor for that matter have the promises of Deut.30:1-10 yet been fulfilled!

The antinomian then says that "all" is "all the fulfilment of the law by Christ". But if this event is imminent with the consequent passing away of the law, within three years or less of these words being spoken - because that is as long as Jesus had left to complete his purpose on earth - why would Jesus go to such lengths to protest that the law is as eternal as the earth under our feet, and as heaven itself! In view of the law’s imminent abolition, these embellishments would be worse than ludicrously superfluous, they would be downright misleading! Why would Christ have uttered these words? Why would Matthew have included them in his gospel account written decades after the crucifixion, knowing that the law had subsequently been abolished? Why would God allow them to be included in the canon of scripture given that they would be completely misleading to future generations of Christians?

According to the traditional view Jesus went about assiduously observing every single point of the Mosaic Law, taking upon himself the burden of the law, so that future believers would be relieved of the duty to do so. It is quite curious that in order to support the view that the Old Testament law can be disregarded, the very people who most vociferously argue this have to believe that Jesus was himself the most scrupulously observant Jew who ever lived! Having convinced themselves that Jesus was a good Jew, the antinomian will then proceed to regard with barely concealed contempt the practice of Christians who live as Jesus lived, in obedience to Old Testament law, and portray such conduct as either unnecessary or positively evil. They will criticise commandment keepers for practising a form of Christianity which is "bizarre" and "unscriptural", and vilify them as some kind of "synagogue of Satan" (Rev.2:9)! A person who views Jesus as a less than enthusiastic keeper of the Jewish law (however appealing this idea might be to antinomians who want nothing to do with the Jewish origins of Christianity) immediately has problems not only with this particular passage of scripture but indeed with the whole doctrine of redemption which requires a sacrifice who is sinless according to the Mosaic Law code.

However the complete answer to the antinomian argument, and this point has never been addressed in any of the writing I have encountered on the subject, is that adherence to the Old Testament law will determine the status of the believer in the kingdom of God (Mat.5:19). This means that Jesus’ re-affirmation of the law in this passage clearly has a future application, since the kingdom has demonstrably not yet come. The law is therefore as relevant today as it was when these words were originally spoken. I repeat that in this passage Jesus is invoking the everlasting validity of the law in terms of complete immutability. Is this so surprising considering the eternal and unchangeable character of God (Mal.3:6)? Why should Jesus engage in this spirited defence of the Old Testament law if it is not intended to be relevant to the religious teachings he is putting across for future generations of followers, both Jewish and gentile? If the law is to have a validity which will pass away with the occurrence of events in the near future (connected with the crucifixion, etc.) why does Jesus bother with these statements?

The standard explanation as already mentioned is that Jesus came to "fulfil the law" and having done so, the passage (Mat.5:18) has been fulfilled. But the word "fulfil" has the connotation of completion. Why should this be seen as doing away with anything? In fact Jesus then goes on to "fulfil" other laws such as those relating to adultery, expressing their truly spiritual nature. This calls to mind the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34 that a new covenant would be instituted in which obedience to the laws of God would be a matter of heartfelt conviction, and not mere observance of the letter of the law. This passage is central to a resolution of this contentious issue and more will be said of it in the following pages.

But again, if the law is effectively abolished when Jesus fulfils it, then why doesn’t he simply ignore the whole issue and not cause problems for those peculiar people who cannot comprehend why God would want to revoke his own laws. Having given people laws to live by and strongly enforcing them in the Old Testament, why should God change his mind about his own authorised code of behaviour! If Jesus is doing away with the law how can his words be explained without a commensurate element of dishonesty on his part?

How do we understand a statement such as Mat.4:4 ("Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"). This must include the Old Testament law of Exodus 20ff. because this was spoken by the mouth of God if we are to believe the Bible! Why does Jesus’ affirmation not include all of these commandments? What is the point of saying that, whilst Jesus always spoke the truth, we need only live by "a select few words which proceed out of the mouth of God"?

Consider the following words taken from the Torah (Deut.6:4):

These words (known and loved by all Jews, including Jesus) concern the duty of the Israelites to obey God’s laws given to Moses. How is it possible to argue that the laws being spoken of here could come to have no effect through the teachings of Christ? By what interpretation of his sayings could it be concluded that it was now totally inappropriate for one of God’s people to live in awe and reverence of these commandments?

In the interpretation of New testament writings, particularly of Paul, the picture presented by commentators is one of Jesus working within traditional Judaism and presenting a message quite consistent with the Jewish religion. However, Paul arrives on the scene, develops Jesus’ basic teachings on an intellectual and polemical plane, and in the process we realise that in fact the Jewish religion was really done away with all the time.

This is not the picture which emerges from a close study of Matthew 5. In this chapter we see Jesus giving his famous Sermon on the Mount, a complete statement of his theological position. Jesus immediately confronts the issue of the continuing validity of the law, and scotches any suspicions that his teachings imply its abolition. There is no question that Jesus sees obedience to the commandments, all 613 of them, as the highest expression of Christian living. It is not as if some evolution takes place in Jesus’ thinking which eventually leads to a nullification of the Mosaic Law as part of the plan of salvation. The issue is put forward right at the outset, because it represents the first misconception people will jump to. It is wise, I submit, to apply this reasoning to the arguments encountered in the New Testament which derive from this teaching and seemingly implying the same conclusion. It is difficult to see how the writings of Jesus’ followers could be more destructive of the law than Jesus’ own sayings, especially as Jesus did not even teach against the law in the first place.

The letters of Paul in particular are a theological/intellectual treatment of Christ’s teachings. Jesus, after all, never wrote a word of scripture during his earthly life. His purpose was to teach through the spoken word and by deeds. Whenever we are tempted to think that what we are reading abolishes God’s law in the words of Paul, we should bear in mind Christ’s disclaimer in Mat.5. The servant is not greater than the master (John 13:16).

What about Christ’s general failure to positively command obedience to Old Testament laws such as, for example, sabbath-keeping? The answer is that this is not something he ever needed to do, since he was operating in an almost exclusively Jewish environment where obedience to the Old Testament law code was simply assumed by the vast majority of his hearers.

There is one further point I would like to make. When Jesus lauds future believers for keeping the law and refers to their exalted place in the coming kingdom, it should be understood that he is making a prophetic statement. He is in effect positively declaring that the worthiest of his followers in the future will, as a matter of historical fact, be people who have faithfully obeyed the laws of the Old Testament. Modern day Christians should remember this when they encounter fellow Christians who live in obedience to these laws and subject such people to derision and ridicule for doing so.

As well as the extended passage in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus elsewhere speaks approvingly of the Old Testament law. In Luke 16:17 Jesus again states that "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than one dot of the law to become void". In Mat.23:3 Jesus advises his followers to do as the Pharisees say, but to not do as they do. In other words the teachings of the Pharisees are basically correct because they are "in Moses seat" ie. they speak with the authority of the Old Testament law. This clearly reaffirms the validity of the Mosaic law code. When Jesus says "do not do as they do" he is getting to the heart of the whole question of the proper relationship between his teachings and the formalities of religious law. The problem with rules and regulations in the religious sphere is that they provide an outward veneer of righteousness which can conceal an inner spiritual emptiness and sterility. The carnal human mind has a tendency to elevate the externalities of religious form to the detriment of true spirituality. Jesus came to shed light on this problem and help people to understand what real spirituality is. His teachings are full of exhortations to enter a spiritual realm of existence in which the reality of God is central and one in which his will and purposes for us dictate the course of events. This is why Jesus spoke at length about faith. This is the quality of placing God first in all things in the face of all the vicissitudes of life, and recognising that "in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose" (Rom.8:28). His purpose was to explain how we may undergo a spiritual change in this life and finally be transformed into spirit beings in the world to come, possessing immortality and power, and holding the status of sons of God on a renewed and cleansed Earth.

This kind of spirituality can become lost in the mire of religious forms and principles no matter how wise or valid they may be. This was very much the case with the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. In John 7:19 Jesus says "Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law". I regard this as the one saying of Jesus which finally resolves the highly contentious issue of whether or not a Christian should observe the Old Testament laws. In saying this, Jesus makes the obvious point that merely claiming to be righteous according to the law does not make you so, especially when you are acting in a way which is contrary to the true spiritual purposes of the law. Jesus criticised the Pharisees for acting unspiritually in their obedience to the outward observances of the Mosaic law (note the Corban example in Mk.7:8-13). At the same time they did not perceive the need to cultivate inner holiness with the same zeal with which they sought ceremonial purity. These observations would be fairly commonplace when applied to any group of people, in any age. But how much more reprehensible was it for people blessed with the knowledge of the divine laws to use this knowledge to deny real spirituality and true holiness by hypocritically concealing their inward sinfulness and corruption.

The understanding that Jesus came to bring was anticipated in the Old Testament itself and is a remarkable demonstration of the way in which Christ was the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. Jesus as the Messiah came to mediate a "New Covenant" (Heb.9:15). As well as the Messianic prophecies, the Old Testament prophesies the actual substance of what could be expected to be the teachings of Israel’s Messiah when he finally arrived on the scene. This prophecy is contained in the book of Jeremiah (Chap.31 v.31).

This passage sets the whole tenor of Jesus’ teachings and must have deeply influenced his own understanding of his divine calling. He would be the mediator of a new relationship between the people of Israel and their God. This New Covenant relationship would be founded upon the basis of the believer actually entering a new spiritual dimension of existence (through baptism in the holy spirit). Through this experience we encounter the power of God by having his spirit enter us ("come upon" us as it is expressed in the Old Testament). This phenomenon is exactly the reverse of the experience of being possessed by demons, who take up residence within a person and are an influence for evil (note, the parable of the seven demons Mat.12:43-5). People should realise that Christianity is not just some new way of thinking, a new philosophy of life, although it does involve both of these things. Jesus came to reveal the reality of God and how we could come into contact with God through his spirit. Christ is the bridge between the spiritual realm and mundane existence.

The spirit-filled Christian will feel motivated to live according to the deepest spiritual dimension of the commandments. This is what it means when Jeremiah writes: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts ...". This surely means nothing less than being imbued with the holy spirit, and this phenomenon is clearly central to the whole scheme of Christ’s theology. (On this point it is worthwhile reading the following passages in the New Testament: Acts 5:32; 19:1-6; Rom.8:9; 2 Cor.5:5; Eph.1:13-14; 1Jn.3:24.)

This amounts to simply adding a dimension to the religion of the Old Testament, or rather revealing a dimension which already existed (see Num.11:25; 1 Sam.10:9-11; 16:13) but which can now be universally received. This teaching is not reflected in the "old" revelation based on a whole lot of "do’s and don’ts". In this respect the Old Testament is simply "deficient" (as is implied in Heb.7:22, which speaks of Jesus being the surety of a "better" covenant). It does not however imply the abolition of these Old Testament laws. What it supplies is a deeper understanding of their true import, and the essentially spiritual way in which they should be kept. We can say that we understand this point intellectually but to actually "live" this truth we must have the spirit dwelling within us. It is not how we deal with this issue in our minds which counts but rather how we put such understanding into practice. The Pharisees did the former, Christians ought to do the latter. This is the point at which Christ’s teachings met head on with the hypocrisy which will inevitably arise wherever you have religious law in operation. There will always exist a gulf between stated belief and actual performance. Approaching Christian theology in purely philosophical terms will lead us to the sort of contradictions which the law/no law debate gives rise to. It is only spiritually alive people who can truly perform according to the real requirements of God’s law. As the prophet Ezekiel says:

This passage brings to mind the statement in Jeremiah 31. A truly spiritual life involves keeping the commandments. The Pharisees possessed the law in stone as well as possessing hearts of stone. In the new order, the people of God will have hearts of flesh because they will have been infused with the spirit. The writing in both cases however remains the same.

CONTINUE