Does Jesus “trump” God? If God’s Law in the Old Testament was only about following rules, did Jesus come to show “a better way of love”?
Many people seem to think so (see part 1 of this series). For very different reasons — perhaps trying to correct for real-life, sinful legalism in other Christians — they say things like, “Jesus wasn’t about rules; He is about a loving relationship with Him.” And many such things they say.
But it doesn’t take that complicated a reading of Scripture to show otherwise (seen in part 2).
Yet the question remains: if Jesus actually defending the Law and insisted it was still in effect — and maybe worse than some people thought — why then did the Pharisees pick on Him so much? And why did He argue against them? Some people might ask: “Weren’t they the religious leaders who had no love and only the Law?” What was their argument truly about?
In these last two columns of the series, we’ll begin more Biblical exploration of those questions.
Further in
It seems Mark 7: 1-13 is one of the best passages about this.
Here, in one of the clearest arguments with the Pharisees, Jesus did not base His arguments on anything close to “I am not about the Law; I am about ‘love.’” Some professing Christians (or real Christians who aren’t taught well on this topic) may assume that was His goal.
But instead He made three main points:
- In all their “laws,” the Pharisees had no heart for the real God and worshiping Him.
- The Pharisees were actually substituting their own made-up laws for the Law.
- With their made-up religious rules, the Pharisees ended up denying God’s real Law.
Don’t miss the Mark
I think the scene sets itself here. Mark in his gospel has already described the religious leaders’ reactions to Jesus’ teachings and miracles. But when the Pharisees see the disciples violating a religious tradition, this encounter is so far the most clear about the exact nature of their conflict.1
Did Jesus oppose the Pharisees because they were only about the Law, with no love for people? My suggestion: ask this very question as we read …
Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked [Jesus], “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God) — then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
Mark 7: 1-13
This is a fascinating passage. Similar to last week, let’s draw out the points one by one, and ask even more specific questions before reading sections of the story up close:
1. Were the disciples really “defiled,” as in breaking God’s real Law?
The word defiled is crucial here. Some readings of this would hold that the disciples were being very cavalier about the Law of Moses. This assumption would say that somewhere in the Law is something about needing to wash hands exactly this way. And with all the laws in Leviticus and more (which often sound strange to us), that’s an easy assumption to make.
But how does Mark define this use of defiled? He says “that is, unwashed,” and goes on to say:
This understanding of defiled is not according to the Law, but means only “unwashed,” and according to nothing more than the “tradition of the elders.” If they are coming back from the secular marketplace, for example, they have decided it’s their rule to do ritual washing.
Mark goes on to say that according to their religious rituals, they wash all kinds of things, not just to keep them clean physically, but to keep them clean (in their view) spiritually.
But though the Law is detailed, with many odd-sounding commands, it does not say to do that.
Answer: No. This is Pharisee-style “defiled.” God’s real Law doesn’t require this washing.
In next week’s final column, we’ll see how Jesus opposes them, not based on some you-must-lighten-up-and-love rationale, but based on the real Law. Again, here it is important to see: the disciples were not truly defiled according to God’s Law. This “defiled” only means “unwashed,” and only as defined by this Pharisee belief — which itself is never mentioned in the Law.
Next week: did Jesus condemn the Pharisees for being up-tight about God’s real Law? Did He argue that they needed to love people more and stop being so legalistic about the real Law? And did He fault them only for adding laws to the real Law, or actively rejecting it?
- Perhaps the first time I saw this myself was in a sermon at my church last year. ↩
Good post. I’m curious about one thing, though–you say , in effect, (and I agree) that Christians ought to keep the Law; that is, we ought to be conformed to the image of Christ who perfecly fulfilled all of it. But what about the ceremonial laws, such as circumcision, cleansing, abstention from unclean foods? I don’t think many Christians deem the ceremonial laws relevant under the New Covenant, especially in light of Paul’s various repudiations of the Judaizers–but how exactly do we distinguish between a law that is ceremonial and pictorial and the Law that is actually the expression of the character of God?
Thanks for a great comment.
Brief note, for those who may not know the Christ-emphasis of this site or the contents of the other columns in the series: none of this should be construed as enacting nothing but Law against Christians. The same Christ Who told us we break God’s real Law far more easily than we might think, also offers Himself as the perfect fulfillment of that Law. Scripture is clear: because of the Law, we know our sin, and because Christ came, preached His kingdom, died and resurrected, we can know our Savior from sin.
One of the best reasons I’ve heard is that we can still discern the intents behind some of the more time-specific laws, such as putting parapets around the roofs of your house — care for houseguests, who might otherwise fall off while staying up there. (Of course, here the death penalty is still hotly contested).
As for what is the difference between moral law (such as the Ten Commandments) and ceremonial law, one of the keys seems to be whether something is repeated in the New Testament. For example, the famous ban on wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics could be seen as being fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding.
Better still, Jesus specifically addresses the prohibitions on certain foods later in Mark 7: 18-19: “And he said to them, ‘Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.)” This is reinforced by Peter’s vision in Acts 11. Its main goal was to show him that Gentiles would now become part of the Church, but a secondary purpose is that all foods are clean.
One of the most direct transferences of Old-Testament laws is from the original commandments against homosexual practice in Leviticus. That is directly carried over into Romans 1, making it clear God’s moral law still prohibits it today (though there is no mention of human-imposed penalties for the practice, as mandated to original Israel).
This is why I think Christians ought to avoid the whole Law-explanation with nonbelievers (often we struggle to get it ourselves!) and focus on what Paul says in Romans. It’s a clear indication that rejection of God leads to that sin and many others.