Jesus and the Law

Daniel's Assertion

It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out. - Carl Sagan

As you'll soon be able to tell, this blog will be an unapologetic rebuttal to Daniel's blog attacking Christianity. Now Daniel has asked all of you to keep an open mind. I'd like to ask you to make sure your brain is still in its place throughout the process.

I also felt it necessary to warn you. Throughout Daniel's blog, we are going to receive the most fundamentalist and literal interpretation of the Bible that we've ever encountered. This is not unique to Daniel, but is really a common trait among atheists. They seem to read Scripture in such an extreme manner that it makes the Westboro Baptist Church look like liberal skeptics in comparison. But that's a topic for another blog. For this one, Daniel has decided to look at a passage from one of the most powerful sermons ever given by Christ: the Sermon on the Mount. Let's dive into our analysis and discussion.

Daniel used the NIV version in his blog. I prefer the Amplified Bible.

17 Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished. 19 Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness (your uprightness and your right standing with God) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Daniel is correct in his assessment of what Jesus is referring to. He is referring to the Old Testament. And Jesus does say that He did not come to repeal the Law, but notice that (in spite of Daniel's numerous attempts to claim otherwise) nowhere does He say that His followers are obligated to follow the Law as mandated by the Pharisees and the Scribes, but in fact, His followers need to do something differently than those 2 groups (their righteousness needs to be above them.) It obviously follows that the followers of Christ need to depend on something other than the Law for their righteousness. But what could possibly supercede the Law in this regard? Apostle Paul elaborates in this regard in Galatians 2:16.

16 Yet we know that a man is justified or reckoned righteous and in right standing with God not by works of the Law, but [only] through faith and[absolute] reliance on and adherence to and trust in Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One). [Therefore] even we [ourselves] have believed on Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law [for we cannot be justified by any observance of the ritual of the Law given by Moses], because by keeping legal rituals and by works no human being can ever be justified (declared righteous and put in right standing with God).

Paul goes on to say in Gal. 3:10-13:

10 And all who depend on the Law [who are seeking to be justified by obedience to the Law of rituals] are under a curse and doomed to disappointment and destruction, for it is written in the Scriptures, Cursed (accursed, devoted to destruction, doomed to eternal punishment) be everyone who does not continue to abide (live and remain) by all the precepts and commands written in the Book of the Law and to practice them. 11 Now it is evident that no person is justified (declared righteous and brought into right standing with God) through the Law, for the Scripture says, The man in right standing with God [the just, the righteous] shall live by and out of faith and he who through and by faith is declared righteous and in right standing with God shall live. 12 But the Law does not rest on faith [does not require faith, has nothing to do with faith], for it itself says, He who does them [the things prescribed by the Law] shall live by them [not by faith]. 13 Christ purchased our freedom [redeeming us] from the curse (doom) of the Law [and its condemnation] by [Himself] becoming a curse for us, for it is written [in the Scriptures], Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree (is crucified);

This is what Jesus means when He says that He fulfilled the Law. He completed its purpose. He achieved it's goal. It is now no longer needed. When we complete tests or projects that are assigned to us, it would be silly to say that we have abolished that particular assignment from the face of the earth. It would be equally ridiculous to claim that because we haven't abolished the test, we need to keep retaking it till the end of time (though maybe some of the more special of us might require such methods in order to pass high school, and I'm looking at you Daniel). The similar concept can be applied to the Law. Because it has been fulfilled by Christ, Christians are no longer obligated to follow it.

Well why have the Law to begin with? Paul discusses this in Gal. 3:19-21:

19 What then was the purpose of the Law? It was added [later on, after the promise, to disclose and expose to men their guilt] because of transgressions and [to make men more conscious of the sinfulness] of sin; and it was intended to be in effect until the Seed (the Descendant, the Heir) should come, to and concerning Whom the promise had been made. And it [the Law] was arranged and ordained and appointed through the instrumentality of angels [and was given] by the hand (in the person) of a go-between [Moses, an intermediary person between God and man]. 20 Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party [there can be no mediator with just one person]. Yet God is [only] one Person [and He was the sole party in giving that promise to Abraham. But the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity was dependent on both]. 21 Is the Law then contrary and opposed to the promises of God? Of course not! For if a Law had been given which could confer [spiritual] life, then righteousness and right standing with God would certainly have come by Law.

He elaborates in Hebrews 10:1-9:

For since the Law has merely a rude outline (foreshadowing) of the good things to come—instead of fully expressing those things—it can never by offering the same sacrifices continually year after year make perfect those who approach [its altars]. 2 For if it were otherwise, would [these sacrifices] not have stopped being offered? Since the worshipers had once for all been cleansed, they would no longer have any guilt or consciousness of sin. 3 But [as it is] these sacrifices annually bring a fresh remembrance of sins [to be atoned for], 4 Because the blood of bulls and goats is powerless to take sins away. 5 Hence, when He [Christ] entered into the world, He said, Sacrifices and offerings You have not desired, but instead You have made ready a body for Me [to offer]; 6 In burnt offerings and sin offerings You have taken no delight. 7 Then I said, Behold, here I am, coming to do Your will, O God—[to fulfill] what is written of Me in the volume of the Book. 8 When He said just before, You have neither desired, nor have You taken delight in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings—all of which are offered according to the Law— 9 He then went on to say, Behold, [here] I am, coming to do Your will. Thus He does away with and annuls the first (former) order [as a means of expiating sin] so that He might inaugurate and establish the second (latter) order.

Really can't say it any better than the Apostle Paul. However, what about some of the other claims made by Daniel, especially regarding the attitude of modern Christians towards ancient Mosaic Law? Well Daniel strongly implies that believers willfully chose to ignore the words of Christ concerning the Law because of a desire to attract Gentiles to their faith by making it "easier." I'd have to inform Daniel, that Judaism was already easier than the polytheistic paganism of the Gentiles (appeasing one God vs. appeasing hundreds), that Gentiles had no trouble flocking to Christianity, and that getting burned alive and eaten in arenas by wild animals doesn't really make stellar advertising for an "easy" religion. Early Christians had many concerns. Putting on a good marketing campaign was not one of them. Daniel second argument is that Christians ignored the words of Christ because they found Mosaic law incompatible with modern society. What Daniel doesn't say is when Christians started to do this. He mentions the early church, but the early church didn't develop in a modern society. And the early church "changed the rules" to bring in more Gentiles, which means that the early church was already "changing the rules" before modern society came along. So which one is it? Either early Christians changed the rules to be more marketable to Gentiles or contemporary Christians changed the rules to fit in with modern society. It's either one or the other and Daniel has already conceded that early Christians were rejecting Mosaic law, which really begs the question of whether Christianity did have to catch up to society or was it the other way around? But I have to correct Daniel. The early church wasn't the first to give up on Mosaic Law. The first person to change the rules was a lowly carpenter from Nazareth who was brought a woman caught in adultery. Mosaic law demanded that she be stoned to death. This carpenter however, demanded that the person without sin cast the first stone at her. Her accusers ended up leaving until it was just that carpenter and her. He turned to her and told her that he does not pass judgment on her and then, in direct violation of the law, he let her go. Daniel might recognize this man. It was His words that He was quoting at the beginning of His blog. That carpenter's entire ministry was based on grace, forgiveness, and love to whomever was willing to accept it and He ended up giving His own life in order to fundamentally change the rules forever.

Daniel's Rebuttal