To What Was Jesus Obedient?

[Drew]

For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

What was Jesus obedient to? Many think that He was obedient to the Law of Moses. I disagree, and am persuaded by arguments to the effect that Jesus was actually obedient to the covenant obligations of Israel.

How could Jesus be odedient to the Law? - He openly declared its end as in Mark 7 where He clearly challenged Levitical food purity laws.

 

[shad]

To What Was Jesus Obedient?

Jesus was obedient to His Father.

.

 

[Vince]

Jesus challenged the man-made rules that the Pharisees had added to God's Law, but He obeyed God's Law. By doing so, He attained a righteousness that He didn't need, and He gives it to us.

 

[Drew]

Jesus challenged the man-made rules that the Pharisees had added to God's Law, but He obeyed God's Law. By doing so, He attained a righteousness that He didn't need, and He gives it to us.

I don't think the texts allow this. In Mark 7, Jesus clearly says that nothing that goes into the man defiles him. This is not only a reaction to man-made tradition, it goes further and directly challenges Levitical food laws - part of the Law of Moses.

 

[LostSoul]

Jesus was obedient to God. Will not argue anything more beyond this point. However, I will say this Jesus said He came NOT to abolish the law, but fulfill.

 

[Drew]

Jesus was obedient to God. Will not argue anything more beyond this point. However, I will say this Jesus said He came NOT to abolish the law, but fulfill.

Its not that simple. One can "abolish" something by fulfilling it.

Suppose I am on a plane to London, England. I am flying with a purpose - to get to London. When I get to London, do I keep flying? Of course not. My purpose has been fulfilled. So the flying stops once the purpose of flying is fulfilled.

That's how I think it is with the Law of Moses - it had the purpose of leading us to Christ (Galatians 3). Once that purpose is achieved, there is no more need for the Law and it is abolished, just as Paul says, and just as Jesus enacts.

 

[LostSoul]

Jesus was obedient to God. Will not argue anything more beyond this point. However, I will say this Jesus said He came NOT to abolish the law, but fulfill.

Its not that simple. One can "abolish" something by fulfilling it.

Suppose I am on a plane to London, England. I am flying with a purpose - to get to London. When I get to London, do I keep flying? Of course not. My purpose has been fulfilled. So the flying stops once the purpose of flying is fulfilled.

That's how I think it is with the Law of Moses - it had the purpose of leading us to Christ (Galatians 3). Once that purpose is achieved, there is no more need for the Law and it is abolished, just as Paul says, and just as Jesus enacts.

So in saying that abolishing is fulfilling would that make Jesus a liar? After all....it is here in scripture:

Matthew 5:17-20 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Then what of Jesus' teachings that in a lot of senses reflected a great deal on the Ten Commandments? Think we need to be careful here. For it is a bit of a thin line. While I do agree with you we are no longer held bound by sin or death....I do not believe that makes us any less suseptible to sin. After all Jesus encouraged us to love our neighbors, and above all else the Lord with all our hearts, minds, bodies, and souls. How can we do this if we do not try to live in accordance to His will?

 

[Drew]

So in saying that abolishing is fulfilling would that make Jesus a liar? After all....it is here in scripture:

Matthew 5:17-20 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, Torah has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Torah, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Torah do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Torah was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal (building, of course, on the ideas of others – I am no Bible scholar) hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world†language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world†imagery being used to describe much more “mundane†events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away†is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished†and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!†as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Torah was retired.

 

[Drew]

To those of you who think that Jesus did not overturn the Law of Moses, consider this statement:

15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him;

This is in direct contradiction to the Law of Moses which declares a lot of food unclean.

The traditional reponse to this is to say that Jesus is only repudiating man-made additions to the Law of Moses. Now, the whole interaction with the Pharisees does indeed begin with Jesus criticizing the Pharisees for their man-made additions. But the statement above from Jesus does not deal with only man-made additions. It says nothing defiles - and that goes against the Law of Moses.

The traditional argument is rather clearly incorrect. It's like saying this statement:

"The bite of no animals can make you sick"

.....does not means what it says simply because it occurs as part of an interaction that starts with the question of whether dog bites in particular can make you sick.

 

[LostSoul]

So in saying that abolishing is fulfilling would that make Jesus a liar? After all....it is here in scripture:

Matthew 5:17-20 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, Torah has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Torah, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Torah do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Torah was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal (building, of course, on the ideas of others – I am no Bible scholar) hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world†language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world†imagery being used to describe much more “mundane†events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away†is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished†and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!†as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Torah was retired.

:o You may not believe this...but I truly do see your point as to why you would interpret it or look at it that way. Gave me something to think about.

 

[Drew]

:o You may not believe this...but I truly do see your point as to why you would interpret it or look at it that way. Gave me something to think about.

Thanks for being willing to look at things from a different perspective - that's a great attitude to have.

 

[Vince]

It is true that food does not defile a man. But Jesus still obeyed the dietary laws commanded in the Old Testament. Later, the Apostle Peter was surprised by God's new commandment that he was not to call anything that God had cleansed (whether food or people) common or unclean.

Later still, in his epistles, Paul explained that we were allowed to eat any kind of food.

 

[Drew]

It is true that food does not defile a man. But Jesus still obeyed the dietary laws commanded in the Old Testament.

Well whether Jesus personally obeyed them or not, He clearly declared that nobody needed to obey them.

Again:

there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.

Later, the Apostle Peter was surprised by God's new commandment that he was not to call anything that God had cleansed (whether food or people) common or unclean.

Later still, in his epistles, Paul explained that we were allowed to eat any kind of food.

Of course, and this means that the kosher food laws of the Law of Moses have been abolished.

 

[prough91]

It is true that food does not defile a man. But Jesus still obeyed the dietary laws commanded in the Old Testament. Later, the Apostle Peter was surprised by God's new commandment that he was not to call anything that God had cleansed (whether food or people) common or unclean.

Later still, in his epistles, Paul explained that we were allowed to eat any kind of food.

I'm not arguing, just curious, how do we know Jesus obeyed the dietary laws? I can't think of any verse, off the top of my head, that would confirm that.

 

[handy]

Drew,

I'm not sure that the Levitical food laws were in place because they "defiled" a man.

My thoughts are a little scattered here, so hopefully I can be somewhat coherent with this thought, please bear with me.

To start with, Adam and Eve's food was very easy: They and the animals had free range all all food bearing plants except the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. That was the first food law, that they weren't to eat from that tree. We all know that they disobeyed. Even after they broke that law and were defiled, the issue of food remained the same until after Noah. Basically, everybody was a vegetarian.

The next food law is found in Genesis 9:3-4: "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."

Here, all the animals, not "clean" but all the animals could be eaten, but again God put a condition: not to eat the blood.

As far as I know, that is the only food prohibition until we get Passover, where the meal was carefully dictated, an unblemished lamb, roasted in fire with bitter herbs, unleavened bread, etc.

Then, when we get to the Levitical food laws, there are all kinds of prohibitions in place, some of them make a lot of sense, some of them seem very arbitrary. I can understand the dietary dangers of pork among a people who were on the move and proper curing was impossible, but come on, what's wrong with shrimp?

Keep in mind also that it wasn't just that they couldn't eat the forbidden foods, they couldn't even touch the carcass.

This all makes it seem to me that it was never about the specific food.

I'm going to post the text here, just to make it easy for me:

Mark 7:14-23 (New American Standard Bible)

14After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."]

17When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable.
18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

20And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
23"All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

I guess what I'm getting at is that the "unclean" foods were forbidden, but not because they defiled the man. Rather, those who would eat those forbidden foods, showed disobedience to God, just as Adam and Eve did. Their disobedience proceeded out of their heart. That was the defilement of the "unclean" foods.

As I think you mentioned earlier, the Law was a tutor, a harsh taskmaster meant to bend the will to God. But, its purpose was always to point out how impossible it is for us to obey God. The law called upon us to obey God regarding not eating shrimp and suddenly we get an overwhelming for some scampi. That was the whole point of the law, to expose our disobedient nature.

So, I guess what I am getting at is that Jesus wasn't contradicting the Law by saying that nothing one eats defiles him, but rather pointing out that the food itself wasn't the defilement, but rather our disobedient nature regarding God that was defilement.

I hope that made some sense.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

I'm not sure that the Levitical food laws were in place because they "defiled" a man.

Well, it seems pretty clear that that was precisely why the laws were in place:

'Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you. 5'Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; 6the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; 7and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you.

 

[Drew]

As I think you mentioned earlier, the Law was a tutor, a harsh taskmaster meant to bend the will to God. But, its purpose was always to point out how impossible it is for us to obey God. The law called upon us to obey God regarding not eating shrimp and suddenly we get an overwhelming for some scampi. That was the whole point of the law, to expose our disobedient nature.

I certainly agree with this, but when the Levitical laws were instituted, the Jews were told that they were not to eat the foods because they were "unclean to the Jew". This is another way of saying that if you eat the food, you become unclean or defiled.

Jesus clearly overturned this. I also think that Jesus overturned a lot of other elements of the Law of Moses - He touched dead bodies and had physical contact with menstruating woman. These things were against the Law of Moses.

People think that Jesus could not have "broken" the Law of Moses, since they see that as "sin". Well let's remember that Jesus, as God incarnate, has the authority to bring the age of the Law of Moses to an end. Which is what Paul also believes as per Galatians 3. And what more effective way could there be for Jesus to bring the Law to an end than by "breaking it".

Remember Jesus in Matthew 24 announcing imminent divine judgement against the Temple. This is a direct statement that the Law of Moses was coming to an end, since so much of the Law was about temple practices.

 

[handy]

I agree with so much of what you're getting at Drew, it's hard for me to adequately formulate exactly what I'm disagreeing about. But, I'll try here.

It's what made the food "unclean" for the Jews. It wasn't because if the food went into them it would defile them. It was because if they ate the food, they would be disobeying a direct command from God, and it would be the disobedience that defiled them.

It was summed up somewhere (I can't think of the reference off hand) with the text: To obey is better than sacrifice.

Disobedience was the first and really, when you get right down to the heart of every single issue on the face of the planet, the ONLY sin. It's disobedience that defiles, not pork chops.

So, what of Jesus coming along and fulfilling the Law? He fulfilled the Law, not because He didn't eat unclean foods or because he touched the dead or a menstruating woman. He fulfilled the Law because He was always perfectly obedient to God's perfect will and therefore nothing proceeded out of Him that defiled Him.

 

[Drew]

It's what made the food "unclean" for the Jews. It wasn't because if the food went into them it would defile them. It was because if they ate the food, they would be disobeying a direct command from God, and it would be the disobedience that defiled them.

But that is not what the Levitical texts actually say. I have posted them already. We are told why the foods are not be eaten, because they are unclean. God does not say "Do not eat because I say so", He says "Do not eat because the foods make you unclean."

So, what of Jesus coming along and fulfilling the Law? He fulfilled the Law, not because He didn't eat unclean foods or because he touched the dead or a menstruating woman. He fulfilled the Law because He was always perfectly obedient to God's perfect will and therefore nothing proceeded out of Him that defiled Him.

My argument is that Jesus fulfills the Law in a manner that brings the law to an end. If I get on a plane to fly to London, when I get there, I stop flying. The purpose of flying has been fulfilled, so the flying stops.

This is what I think is happening with the Law. Jesus fulfills it in the same sense - in a way that brings it application to a close.

And altough I have not gotten into this yet (except in the OP), I believe that Jesus was obedient to Israel's covenant obligations, not to the Law of Moses.

 

[handy]

We'll have to disagree about the food being either "unclean" or "unclean to you" (the Israelite). I do believe there is a difference.

As for the rest, I'm in agreement, Jesus' coming fulfilled the Law. It's not abolished, it is fulfilled.

And altough I have not gotten into this yet (except in the OP), I believe that Jesus was obedient to Israel's covenant obligations, not to the Law of Moses.

Yes, I was going to ask about that as well.