‘jesus Opposed The Law.’ Discuss

The claim that Jesus opposed the law is deeply controversial, as although on the surface it would seem that he does break the law on multiple occasions, I will argue that these are merely adjustments in which Jesus intended to strengthen the law by tackling them at a circumstantial angle, whereby he would further explain the smaller details of Moses law as written in the Torah. It is certainly true that many of Jesus followers would have thought that he was attempting to set aside Moses law, however, Jesus claims to not be opposed to the Law in any way (Matt 5), and he opposes anyone who lessens the Law.

Conflict is perhaps the most prevalent theme in the gospels, with numerous disputes taking place in a number of differing settings with various people. This conflict essentially led to the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, therefore it is no surprise that the question of whether Jesus opposed the law is extremely important. We must look into the issues which caused the conflict in order to establish whether he did indeed oppose the law .

The first component to observe is the Antitheses (found in Matthew 5:21-48), whereby Jesus declares that one must love [their] enemies and pray for those who persecute you . This seems to go against the Mosaic law as the Law tells the Israelites who to hate, while Jesus says to hate no one - to even love one s enemies. However, the Law is very specific about who one is to hate - Moabites, Amorites and Canaanites. Other nations are not to be hated or done evil to. According to later scri pture, however, God revoked his command about the Canaanites and the eventual command would be to not intermarry with these tribes, as well as granting them the eschatological promise to Israel if they displayed faith (Matthew 15). Thus, Jesus is not contradicting Moses, but taking a basic principle of the law& Love of neighbour and applying it more broadly. Gerd Theissen backs this up as he believes that Jesus was intensifying the ethical laws to prepare the people for the kingdom of God, and relaxing the ritual norms in order to open the kingdom to everyone. However there are problems with Theissen s view as it is possible that the relaxing of ritual norms may be a product of early Church theology giving legitimacy to the gentile mission. Furthermore, the Antitheses may also be part of Matthew s anti-jewish feelings, as he could have been trying to show that Jesus is a new Moses and that the charges levelled against the early Christians that they are law breakers have no substantial evidence.

A further issue that seemed to cause conflict was the fasting, or lack of fasting, as we can observe in Mark 2 whereby Jesus disciples are described as plucking grains on the Sabbath. Harvesting food is forbidden on the Sabbath, according to the law and Jesus is attacked by the Pharisees for allowing them to do it. Jesus, however, gives a number of examples showing in the scri ptures how one law is contradicted and set aside for a greater one, for example he cites that David ate the consecrated bread intended by law only for priests. However if we observe this reference, we find that it is a misquotation of David, and that in the story it has nothing to do with the Sabbath. In this matter, however, the overriding factor that Jesus did not oppose the law is that he himself did not pluck a single grain, it was his disciples who began to pick some heads of grain (Mark 2). Here, it is evident that Jesus is merely debating the law with the Pharisees, not breaking it.

Burying the dead is another area that Jesus seems to oppose, as he says& Follow me& and let the dead bury their dead . EP Sanders argues that this is the most shocking and revolutionary thing that Jesus ever said and the only way in which he offends laws in the Torah. The duty to bury one s parents was one of the most respected and treasured customs at the time and widows would encounter extreme distress at the thought that their children predeceased them because there would be no on eta give them a proper burial. This general feeling of the time must be kept in mind when observing Jesus command as they were deeply controversial. This command seems to contradict the command to honour one s parents. However, Jesus is not contradicting it. First of all, Jesus is prioritising work for God s kingdom before participating in honouring one s parents, just as Jesus prioritises God s kingdom work over many other necessary things. Although it is hard to imagine that the gospel writers invented such a shocking saying, it is perhaps possible that they created the story to reference Elisha s call of Elijah, except that Jesus is far more demanding, suggesting that Jesus is first of all sent from God, and secondly more significant than Elisha.

When confronted with Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, Jesus claims that the law was a compromise to the hard hearts of the Israelites, and that divorce was never in God s plan. He uses another part of the Law which confirms that marriage is established by God ( made them male and female ). He concludes that divorce should only be allowed if adultery is found - because adultery would break the covenant of marriage even without divorce. While it seems that Jesus is contradicting Moses, on the surface, Jesus is not actually opposing the law, here. The original law was to make a divorce official by having it be written in order to prevent remarriage. Thus the certificate is less about divorce and more about disallowing remarriage. Jesus is bringing the law back to its original intent by preventing remarriage, rather than allowing divorce.

Jesus claims that it is not what one touches or eats that makes one unclean, but the intent of one s heart. This seems to contradict Moses who says that what one touches can make them unclean. Jesus, however, does not deny the actions that one should do to remain clean in the law - he is not opposed to bathing, but only obligatory washing before meals (which is found in the oral law, not the written). He could be speaking about the real cleanness that will matter on the judgement day (i.e of the spirit), not the day to day cleanness that is insignificant in the grand scheme of the kingdom of God. Jesus is not contradicting Moses, but highlighting the moral law.

To conclude, the weight of evidence suggests that Jesus did not break the laws of the Torah at all. Jesus takes the Mosaic laws, for example those of burying the dead and purity issues, of which were somewhat based in the heavily debated Oral Tradition, and he prioritised them according to their importance with regards to Jesus belief of the coming of the kingdom of God.