Did Jesus violate OT laws?

Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

Matt. 5:17-18 Think not that I am

come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I
say unto you, Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the law, till all
be fulfilled.
Skeptics point to this one and say:
"How can this be the case? Jesus broke
Top of Form a bunch of laws from the OT -- or told
people to break them."
What Letter?
Did he? Here are the examples I have
seen cited, and the answers.
Bottom of Form
Top of Form Matt. 15:1-3 Then some Pharisees and
What Bible Book? teachers of the law came to Jesus from
Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
disciples break the tradition of the
elders? They don't wash their hands
before they eat!" Jesus replied, "And
why do you break the command of God
for the sake of your tradition?
One Skeptic accuses Jesus of
ignoring his own guilt in
Keyword Search lawbreaking with a "you do it
Bottom of Form
too" excuse. But Jesus is not
breaking the OT law; he is violating a
"tradition of the elders" - part of the
Pharasaic oral law, or code of
interpretation, not the actual law.
Jesus' own reply is a typical rabbinic
response which points out that his
accusers are guilty of a greater offense,
which is a violation of the clear law (to
honor one's parents) for the sake of a
lesser interpretation of the law
(Corban).
Attempts to interpret the law after this
fashion resulted in peculiarities: For
example, one could borrow something
as long as they did not ask to borrow it
(for that would constitute a transaction,
and hence work); one could put out a
lamp to save one's life, but not merely
to turn it off to save oil; a man could
not put vinegar on his tooth for a
toothache, but he could put vinegar on
his food -- and if he happened to get
relief from that, it was OK. [Raymond
Brown's commentary on John]
Luke 6:1-4 One Sabbath Jesus was
going through the grainfields, and his
disciples began to pick some heads of
grain, rub them in their hands and eat
the kernels...
Jesus is accused of both violating the
Sabbath and stealing corn. Once again,
however, he is violating a Pharasaic
interpretation of what constituted
"work", not an actual OT law, and his
picking of corn from the fields of the
others is allowed in the OT (Lev. 19:9-
10) and is not considered to be
stealing.
John 8:4-11. See our answer here.
Matt. 15.11//Mark 7:15. These
words alter or ignore no Jewish law;
they merely stress the obvious point
that it is the disobedience, not the food
itself, that is the essence of the
violation. (The interpretive comment in
Mark 7:19 can be seen as a significant
alteration in meaning.
However, there are strong reasons to
doubt that it is part of the original text:
The participal construction hangs
awkwardly with no obvious syntactical
connection to what surrounds it; the
word "foods" is
a hapaxlegomemon (not found
anywhere else in the NT); and Mark's
usual method of making such "side
comments" is entirely different.
[Guelich's commentary on Mark, 378])
Luke 11:37-8. This does not record a
violation of any law, since while such
washings as indicated are described,
they are not prescribed or ordered.
Indeed, the whole issue for the
Pharisee would be the expectation that
Jesus would wash after being around
the "unclean" masses in the previous
passage. In essence Jesus is defying
the Pharisee's personal bigotry against
the common people.
John 5:8-11. The comment by Jesus'
opponents may be reflective of
later Mishnah rules that forbade
carrying things, especially beds, on the
Sabbath, but these are merely
interpretations of the "no work on the
Sabbath" rule, not actual law.
Mark 2:18-20. This does not involve
any sort of Jewish but merely reflects a
voluntary ceremonial practice (it is not
associated with any of the normal fast
days of the Jewish calendar). Matt.
5:32 is no alteration of the law but an
interpretation of the law, one the
reflects an interpretation also held in
first-century Judaism of the day.
Prov. 30:5-6, Rev. 22:18-19.
Because the Proverbs verse is a
proverb, and therefore no absolute, and
because the Revelation verse refers
only to the book of Revelation, these
cannot technically be used against
Jesus or anyone as an indication that
 one could not add to or "alter" the OT
law.
Moreover, not only does this ignore the
fact that ancient law codes were not
"fixed" and absolute in the same sense
as our modern laws, but were rather
didactic in nature, it also ignores the
fact that Jesus, as God's
representative, was perfectly free to
update the law and was also the one
best qualified to interpret it. However,
as we have shown, no actual instance
of this has been proven.
-JPH

Top of Form

/w EPDw UKMTQx

/w EWBw Lz78mu

ovie requires Flash Player 8. Download Flash Player 8

Reason & Revelation

Discovery Magazine

Multimedia

Store

About AP

PDF-Books

Speaking Schedules

© 2011 ApologeticsPress
(800) 234-8558
 | Sign up for E-mail Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Contact
Us

Alleged Discrepancies

America's
Culture War

Creation Vs. Evolution

Deity of
Christ
Doctrinal
Matters

Existence
of God

Inspiration of
the Bible

Islam and Other World Religions

Topics

Al
AB CDEF GHI J
l
M NOPQRST UW
Abortion
Afterlife
Age of the Earth
Alleged Human
Evolution
Animal Rights
Archaeology
Atheism
Bible Interpretation
Biomimicry
Bulletin Articles
Calvinism
Capital Punishment
Catholicism
Christian Origins
Church Organization
Cloning
Cosmology
Creación vs. Evolución
DardosBíblicos
Days of Creation
Defined
Deism
Denominationalism
Design in Animals
Design in Plants
Design in the Universe
Design of the Human
Body
Difficult Passages
Dinosaurs
Divine Life and Doctrine
Divorce
End Times
Environmentalism
Euthanasia
Factual Accuracy
Faith & Reason
Flood
Founding Fathers
Gambling
Genetics
Geology
God & Scientific Laws
Government and God
Hinduism
Historicity
Homosexuality
Human Suffering
Illegal Immigration
Implications of Atheism
Implications of Evolution
In the News
Islam
Jehovah's Witnesses
Judaism
Marriage and Family
Miracles
Morality
Mormonism
Muhammad
Nature of God
Origins
Paleontology
Polygamy
Prophecy
Public Education
Quran
Religious Nature of Man
Reproductive
Technology
Resurrection of Christ
Salvation
Satan
Scientific Foreknowledge
Secular Humanism
Situation Ethics
Stem-Cell Research
TemasDoctrinales
Theistic Evolution
Transmission/Textual
Criticism
Unity
Worship
Apologetics Press Articles

Search :

Search By Search By Bible

Keyword Verse
Share

Did Jesus Condone Law-breaking?

by Eric Lyons,
M.Min.

The Pharisees certainly did not think that the Son of God was beyond reproach.
Following Jesus’ feeding of the four thousand, they came “testing” Him, asking Him
to show them a sign from heaven (Matthew 16:1). Later in the gospel of Matthew
(19:3ff.), the writer recorded how “the Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him,
and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ ” It
was their aim on this occasion, as on numerous other occasions, to entangle Jesus
in His teachings by asking Him a potentially entrapping question—one that, if
answered in a way that the Pharisees had anticipated, might bring upon Jesus the
wrath of Herod Antipas (cf. Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29) and/or some of His
fellow Jews (e.g., the school of Hillel, or the school of Shammai). A third time the
Pharisees sought to “entangle Him in His talk” (Matthew 22:15) as they asked, “Is it
lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (22:17). The jealous and hypocritical
Pharisees were so relentless in their efforts to destroy the Lord’s influence that on
one occasion they even accused Jesus’ disciples of breaking the law as they “went
through the grainfields on the Sabbath…were hungry, and began to pluck heads of
grain and to eat” (Matthew 12:1ff.). [NOTE: “Their knowledge of so trifling an
incident shows how minutely they observed all his deeds” (Coffman, 1984, p. 165).
The microscopic scrutiny under which Jesus lived, likely was even more relentless
than what some “stars” experience today. In one sense, the Pharisees could be
considered the “paparazzi” of Jesus’ day.] Allegedly, what the disciples were doing
on this particular Sabbath was considered “work,” which the Law of Moses forbade
(Matthew 12:2; cf. Exodus 20:9-10; 34:21).

Jesus responded to the criticism of the Pharisees by giving the truth of the matter,
and at the same time revealing the Pharisees’ hypocrisy. As was somewhat
customary for Jesus when being tested by His enemies (cf. Matthew 12:11-12; 15:3;
21:24-25; etc.), He responded to the Pharisees’ accusation with two questions. First,
He asked: “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those
who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which
was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the
priests?” (12:3-4). Jesus reminded the Pharisees of an event in the life of David
(recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1ff.), where he and others, while fleeing from king Saul,
ate of the showbread, which divine law restricted to the priests (Leviticus 24:5-9).
Some commentators have unjustifiably concluded that Jesus was implying
innocence on the part of David (and that God’s laws are subservient to human
needs—cf. Zerr, 1952, 5:41; Dummelow, 1937, p. 666), and thus He was defending
His disciples “lawless” actions with the same reasoning. Actually, however, just the
opposite is true. Jesus explicitly stated that what David did was wrong (“not
lawful”—12:4), and that what His disciples did was right—they were “guiltless”
(12:7). Furthermore, as J.W. McGarvey observed: “If Christians may violate law
when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end to
suffering for the name of Christ, and an end even of self-denial” (1875, p. 104). The
disciples were not permitted by Jesus to break the law on this occasion (or any
other) just because it was convenient (cf. Matthew 5:17-19). The Pharisees simply
were wrong in their accusations. The only “law” Jesus’ disciples broke was the
Pharisaical interpretation of the law (which seems to have been more sacred to the
Pharisees than the law itself). In response to such hyper-legalism, Burton Coffman
forcefully stated:

In the Pharisees’ view, the disciples were guilty of threshing wheat! Such
pedantry, nit-picking, and magnification of trifles would also have made
them guilty of irrigating land, if they had chanced to knock off a few drops
of dew while passing through the fields! The Pharisees were out to “get” Jesus;
and any charge was better than none (1984, p. 165, emp. added).

Jesus used the instruction of 1 Samuel 21 to get the Pharisees to recognize their
insincerity, and to justify His disciples. David, a man about whom the Jews ever
boasted, blatantly violated God’s law by eating the showbread, and yet the
Pharisees justified him. On the other hand, Jesus’ disciples merely plucked some
grain on the Sabbath while walking through a field, an act that the law did not
forbid, and yet the Pharisees condemned them. Had the Pharisees not approved of
David’s conduct, they could have responded by saying, “You judge yourself. You’re
all sinners.” Their reaction to Jesus’ question, however, was that of hypocrites who
had been exposed—silence.
Jesus then asked a second question, saying, “Have you not read in the law that on
the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?”
(Matthew 12:5). Here, Jesus wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge that even the law
itself condoned some work on the Sabbath day. Although the Pharisees acted as if
all work was banned on this day, it was actually the busiest day of the week for
priests.

They baked and changed the showbread; they performed sabbatical sacrifices
(Num. xxviii. 9), and two lambs were killed on the sabbath in addition to the daily
sacrifice. This involved the killing, skinning, and cleaning of the animals, and the
building of the fire to consume the sacrifice. They also trimmed the gold lamps,
burned incense, and performed various other duties (McGarvey, n.d., pp. 211-212).

One of those “other duties” would have been to circumcise young baby boys when
the child’s eighth day fell on a Sabbath. The purpose of Jesus citing these “profane”
priestly works was to prove that the Sabbath prohibition was not unconditional.
[NOTE: Jesus used the term “profane,” not because there was a real desecration of
the temple by the priests as they worked, but “to express what was true according
to the mistaken notions of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the
Sabbath” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 676).] The truth is, the Sabbath law “did not forbid
work absolutely, but labor for worldly gain. Activity in the work of God was both
allowed and commanded” (McGarvey, n.d., p. 212). Coffman thus concluded: “Just
as the priests served the temple on the Sabbath day and were guiltless, his
[Jesus’—EL] disciples might also serve Christ, the Greater Temple, without incurring
guilt” (p. 167). Just as the priests who served God in the temple on the Sabbath
were totally within the law, so likewise were Jesus’ disciples as they served the
“Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8), Whose holiness was greater than that of the
temple (12:6).

REFERENCES

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1968 reprint).

Coffman, Burton (1984), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU
Press).

Dummelow, J.R. (1937), One Volume Commentary (New York: MacMillan).

McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel
Light).

Zerr, E.M. (1952), Bible Commentary (Raytown, MO: Reprint Publications).

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for this item to be reproduced in its entirety, as
long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be
designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL
must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4)
any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included
with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly
forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced
exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g.,
running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material
is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in
whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale;
and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites
pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is
given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were
taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

Bottom of Form