Did Jesus have to keep the Law to achieve atonement and break it's curse?

[BobRyan]

Nice response Kevin - thanks.

The Curse of the Law which Jesus took on Himself is referenced in Galatians.

It seems then that the obligation to stone the woman was not in the Written Law from your POV.

That was the civil law for the nation under a Theocracy - it ends when the theocracy ended.

The Baptist Confession of Faith - sectn 19 admits this same point
The Westminster Confession of Faith - sectn 19 admits this same point

 

[Carl Emerson]

According to Paul -- we are to honor parents because God's Law says "Honor your father and mother" and it is "the first commandment" in the Law of God -- with a promise Eph 6:1-2

In Matt 22 Jesus said "all the Law and the prophets" are firmly founded on these two commands in the Law of Moses
1. Love God with all your heart - Deut 6:5
2. Love your neighbor as yourself - Lev 19:18

In Eph 6:1-2 Paul does not say "The Law says - honor your father and mother - but the real command is something else"

But He does say in Matt 12:

5 Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? 6 But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That was the civil law for the nation under a Theocracy - it ends when the theocracy ended.

The Baptist Confession of Faith - sectn 19 admits this same point
The Westminster Confession of Faith - sectn 19 admits this same point

The incident under consideration was in a nation under a Theocracy.

 

[KevinT]

It seems then that the obligation to stone the woman was not in the Written Law from your POV.

That is not what I was saying. The law to stone the woman was still in effect. I was saying that the law did not put an obligation on Jesus. The obligation was on the people who found the guilty man and woman.

You seem to dismiss the fact that Jesus righteousness was direct from the Father and well above the Law's requirements.

In general, Jesus WAS obligated to follow the law. I gave an example in the situation of paying the temple tax where Jesus asserted that this didn't apply to Him. But the temple tax was not a God-given regulation. If we say that Jesus was not obligated to follow the Mosaic law, then all the understanding of Christ living a perfect life falls apart. "We have to honor our parents, but Jesus didn't because He was God" -- it doesn't hold.

You introduce the idea that what was written in the Torah was a mix of God's instruction and mans best judgement. This throws doubt on what is truely in the Law and what is not. So the question in the OP cannot be answered if we cant be sure what was legitimately in the Law. This would be a departure from believing the plain text and being accountable to it.

However if Moses was inspired to allow divorce the problem goes away.

If Moses was 100% inspired by God (i.e. the commandment allowing divorce was from God and not Moses), then what Jesus said doesn't make any sense. Jesus (God) was teaching that marriage should be forever, and that divorce demonstrates a failure of genuine love. That conflicted with the divorce provision in the Mosaic law. "How can this be," the crowd asked? "If the I AM God allowed divorce by directing the pen of Moses, how can you (Jesus), who also claims to be the I AM God, say the opposite?" If God counters the instruction of God, the whole situation falls apart. The solution is that Moses, as a God-ordained leader of the people, used his God-given mind to solve a problem with hard-hearted people. Jesus was trying to help the people understand that there is a better way, and to not to have hard hearts.

Going back to the question in the OP then - can you give a short answer ?

I notice Jesus opposed the stoning of the woman in adultery which the Law required to be done. ... Was He then fulfilling the Law by keeping a higher 'Law of the Spirit'?

Jesus was keeping a "higher Law" in accordance to the Spirit. But that was not in conflict with the guidance He Himself, as the great 'I AM', had given Moses.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[KevinT]

But He does say in Matt 12:

5 Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? 6 But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

Jesus, as the great I AM, created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. He is the Lord of the Sabbath. He is the one who instructed Moses in all the regulations for the activities of the priests in the temple. So when those priests followed His instructions, they were NOT acting contrary to His commandments, NOT breaking His sabbath.

The problem was with all the bad EXTRA regulations that Jews had added onto the Sabbath over the centuries. In the supposed attempt to honor the Sabbath, they had turned it into a horrible burden. It got to the point that, as the Messiah was pouring out God's blessing via healing, ... the synagogue official, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, began saying to the crowd in response, “There are six days in which work should be done; so come during them and get healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” (Luke 13:14)

So when Jesus said that the priests in the temple were "breaking the Sabbath", He was talking about breaking THEIR kind of Sabbath, breaking their restrictions against doing anything at all. THEY said that healing miracles were not allowed on the Sabbath. THEY said that the man carrying his mat home after being healed by the pool was violating the Sabbath. THEY said that Jesus was clearly sinful because he had restored the sight of the blind man on the Sabbath.

Christ gave lesson after lesson during His ministry to restore the Sabbath back to it's original blessing.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[Joseph G]

John 5:39-47
New International Version

39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

41 “I do not accept glory from human beings, 42 but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44 How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

God bless

 

[Studyman]

Hi there,

I notice Jesus opposed the stoning of the woman in adultery which the Law required to be done.

I think it's important to not miss-characterize what happened in these stories.

John 8: 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, "tempting him", that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

What does the Law say:

Lev. 20: 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Deut. 22: 22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

And who was to stone them?

Num. 15: 35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

And what did Jesus say them?

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

So Jesus told them to follow the Commandment. Go ahead and kill her if you believe that is what the Law provides for. They were not expecting that. They knew that they too, were worthy of Stoning, no different than her. They knew they were not fulfilling the Law of Moses by Stoning her, but were trying to trick Jesus. So one by one they walked away until there was left only One Man.

Deut. 17: 6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of "one witness" he shall not be put to death.

7 The hands "of the witnesses" shall be "first" upon him to put him to death, (Cast the First Stone) and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

And what did Jesus say when it was only HIM to accuse her?

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, "where are those thine accusers"? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: "go, and sin no more".

In this story, Jesus followed the Law of God perfectly. Both the Letter and the Spirit. There were "No Accusers", rather, deceivers trying to trick Jesus. Jesus didn't oppose the Law of the Adulteress or Adulterer. He knew their scam, and where was the Adulterer? He overcame their wickedness "Because" HE followed the Law of Moses.

I find this story another of many perfect rebukes HE gave to the mainstream preachers of His Time. And it was this dedication to God and His Law that angered these men "who professed to know God, but by works denied Him", to the point of murdering Him. The same spirit that was on Cain towards his righteous brother.

I believe the other example you use is the same, I will address it in another post.

Great topic to study and dwell on. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[Studyman]

He also harvested on the Sabbath when the disciples were hungry.

Was He then fulfilling the Law by keeping a higher 'Law of the Spirit'?

Comments welcome.

I don't believe the word "Harvest" is an accurate word to describe what Jesus and His Disciples did in this story. This word implies a commercial gathering of food to sell or store. Here is what is written.

Matt. 12: 1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

So here we have Jesus and His Disciples walking in fellowship on God's Holy Sabbath. He wasn't walking through an apple orchard, or raspberry patch, rather, He was walking through a corn field. There is no LAW of God that says you can't take a walk on God's Holy Sabbath and pick a raspberry or apple or ear of corn along the way to munch on. But the Pharisees, who Jesus said taught for doctrines the Commandments of men and not God, had created Sabbath Laws that forbids a man from taking a walk in fellowship with God's Son, and picking a raspberry or ear of corn to eat along the way.

2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

But again, Jesus with His perfect knowledge of Scriptures, points out their hypocrisy.

3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

Lets review the story.

1 Sam. 21: 3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present.

4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.

5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.

6 "So the priest gave him hallowed bread": for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

What was the purpose of "Hallowed Bread"? Is this not the flesh of Christ, Spiritually Speaking?


5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned "the guiltless". 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

So the Pharisees accused the guiltless, as there is no Law against taking a walk on the Sabbath days and eating an ear of corn. And had these Pharisees understood Scripture, instead of promoting their own judgments and doctrines, they would not have made such a petty judgment against innocent men.

Another great topic.

 

[Carl Emerson]

In general, Jesus WAS obligated to follow the law. I gave an example in the situation of paying the temple tax where Jesus asserted that this didn't apply to Him. But the temple tax was not a God-given regulation. If we say that Jesus was not obligated to follow the Mosaic law, then all the understanding of Christ living a perfect life falls apart. "We have to honor our parents, but Jesus didn't because He was God" -- it doesn't hold.

OK... so your position is that Jesus kept the Mosaic Law to the letter and this was a requirement in order that the Curse of the Law be broken on the Cross - correct ?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Jesus was keeping a "higher Law" in accordance to the Spirit. But that was not in conflict with the guidance He Himself, as the great 'I AM', had given Moses.

Best wishes,

KT

Do you apply this reasoning to the Ten or the many Laws that followed as well ?

 

[Carl Emerson]

If Moses was 100% inspired by God (i.e. the commandment allowing divorce was from God and not Moses), then what Jesus said doesn't make any sense. Jesus (God) was teaching that marriage should be forever, and that divorce demonstrates a failure of genuine love.

This seems to suggest that Moses Law's that followed the Ten were less authoritative and not totally inspired at times even when presented as God's Word on matters.

 

[RDKirk]

OK... so your position is that Jesus kept the Mosaic Law to the letter and this was a requirement in order that the Curse of the Law be broken on the Cross - correct ?

I would say that Jesus kept to the spirit of the Law, not the letter of the Law.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So when Jesus said that the priests in the temple were "breaking the Sabbath", He was talking about breaking THEIR kind of Sabbath, breaking their restrictions against doing anything at all. THEY said that healing miracles were not allowed on the Sabbath. THEY said that the man carrying his mat home after being healed by the pool was violating the Sabbath. THEY said that Jesus was clearly sinful because he had restored the sight of the blind man on the Sabbath.

Christ gave lesson after lesson during His ministry to restore the Sabbath back to it's original blessing.

Best wishes,

KT

That is not the plain reading of what Jesus said in Matt 12 verse 5...

Maybe we should read the Scripture Jesus was referring to...

Mmmm... reminds me of when I carried a bag in the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem on a Sabbath and got rocks thrown at me - one just passed over my head...

 

[KevinT]

OK... so your position is that Jesus kept the Mosaic Law to the letter and this was a requirement in order that the Curse of the Law be broken on the Cross - correct ?

Jesus kept the Mosaic Law. I don't believe the "that the Curse of the Law be broken on the Cross" part.

KT

 

[KevinT]

Do you apply this reasoning to the Ten or the many Laws that followed as well ?

Jesus followed all the Laws that He, Himself, had given. He did not need to follow all the extra cruft that was added on by humans over time.

KT

 

[KevinT]

That is not the plain reading of what Jesus said in Matt 12 verse 5...

Maybe we should read the Scripture Jesus was referring to...

Mmmm... reminds me of when I carried a bag in the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem on a Sabbath and got rocks thrown at me - one just passed over my head...

Where does it specify that a "plain reading" is the correct reading?

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. Prov 25:2

Yeah, I don't think rock throwing was included in the great I AM's instructions to mankind.

KT

 

[KevinT]

This seems to suggest that Moses Law's that followed the Ten were less authoritative and not totally inspired at times even when presented as God's Word on matters.

This is the only conclusion I can come to based on Jesus's comments on Mosaic divorce.

KT

 

[Carl Emerson]

Jesus kept the Mosaic Law. I don't believe the "that the Curse of the Law be broken on the Cross" part.

KT

Maybe take a look at Deut 28 and Galatians 3.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Jesus followed all the Laws that He, Himself, had given. He did not need to follow all the extra cruft that was added on by humans over time.

KT

Of course... but some laws were delivered by Moses as a compromise to suit the times.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Where does it specify that a "plain reading" is the correct reading?

Plain reading in context always presents a strong case for consideration. Strong evidence to refute it would be needed.