Does Jesus Ever Deny the Old Testament

[C-Nub]

There's a lot of threads that reference individual quotes from the old testament, be it that gays are bad, women are inferior, disobidient children should be stoned, don't mix your fabrics, rape your enemies, and lots of other things, that supporters of the Bible really don't seem to do anymore, or believe... Well, some still hate or judge the gays for being so wicked, but I barely consider bigots to be people, which is kind of ironic, so we'll skip over that little detail for the time being.

So I'm wondering, did Jesus, who by all accounts was a practicing Jew and, therefore, one would assume, supporter of the Old Testament, even say anything that could be interpreted to mean that the old laws are no longer valid?

I haven't read the bible in years, but if he did, it would go a long way to explain why I haven't seen any adulterers stoned in the street. I mean, except for the ones I throw rocks at...

[micatala]

It seems to me it absolutely does contradict Moses. The OT gives one teaching on divorce and remarriage, Jesus a different one. Giving a "higher standard" is still giving a different teaching.

Jesus not only asked for Moses' word on the subject, but let it stand, adding the reason why Moses allowed divorce, not at all contradicting Moses, but supporting Moses. It was not unlawful for a Rabbi to add a comment on consequences of carrying out that law, pointing out a greater sin can result if a divorcee remarries.

Supporting Moses?? Not contradicting Moses?? What??? Yes, Jesus gives a reason why Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Then he gives a different teaching than Moses. If you are trying to say that Moses would have given the same teaching as Jesus if the peoples' hearts weren't hard, you can make that case, but it still would not change that what Moses wrote is different than what Jesus taught.

Jesus is not 'commenting on' on the law to clarify it, he is contradicting it.

Jesus also gives a different teaching than "an eye for an eye."

You must be viewing some other passage.

Yes, this is from another passage. As I recall, it is in the passage where Jesus says not to resist and evildoer and to "turn the other cheek." The point is that it provided another example where Jesus gave a different teaching than Moses.

Furthermore, the jews were REQUIRED to stone the woman.

For adultery, yes, but the passage didn't concern a question on stoning of an adulteress by the Pharisees as posted above in your reply. The subject was simply divorce. Jesus never once condemned stoning for adultery, but complicated the carrying out of a stoning, rightfully requiring righteousness of the stoners.

I would agree, Jesus never explicitly condemned stoning for adultery. However, he was not really in a position to "require" righteousness, rather, he embarassed his audience into not following through with the stoning.

Again, where do you think it is said Jesus prohibited stoning?

I am not saying he prohibited the stoning. I am saying he acted in such a way that the law was not followed as stated.

For example, suppose A is required under the law to report to a probation officer this week. B, however, convinces A not to comply with the law and to skip his meeting with the probation officer. B has encouraged A to break the law, and his actions have helped contribute to a law being broken. This is what Jesus did, in my view.

Now, you could say since they did not have the man there with her, that they were not following the law. However, by keeping them from stoning the woman, Jesus actions had the effect of the law not being followed. The law did not make the stoning optional. It was required. "They must be put to death."

The adulterous man being there or not wasn't an issue. Accusers remaining there was. The law required witnesses and accusers. The accusers didn't carry out a required stoning. Jesus, not being part of the accusation, not numbered as an accuser, was not obliged to carry out the stoning. In the absence of accusers His only recourse was to let the woman go free, adding that she ought not sin again.

3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

Well, it may be that the Pharisees were not among the witnesses. However, there were witnesses to the act according to John. You may be correct that Jesus himself, being neither a witness nor an accuser, was not required to take part in the stoning. Still, the law clearly stated that the woman must be stoned. The law was not followed, and Jesus clearly bears responsibility for the stoning not occurring.

I recommend you study the law itself before accusing Jesus of not following it. Nobody was authorized to go around stoning sinners on the basis of hearsay accusations.

I am willing to be corrected regarding who was "authorized" to do the stoning. However, it is clear, based on what the law says, that the stoning should have taken place. It was REQUIRED. I don't see that debating the issue of who would actually be doing the stoning changes the fact that the stoning was required, and that Jesus actions had the effect of having the law violated.

Now, is acting in such a way that someone else violates the law itself a violation of the law? Well, Jesus himself says:

6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

You might argue that this applies only to causing children to sin, but it certainly does not seem like a good thing from a Jewish perspective to keep others from following the law.

Well, even during the 1st century, the death penalty for any reason was pretty rare. While it was feasible, any Sanhedrin that even did 1 capital case was considered blood thirsty. So, that teaching attributed to Jesus was not new, and it is misrepresenting the state of the law in Israel at the time.

I am certainly willing to allow that the above may be true. I am not claiming that it was the standard practice during Jesus' day to have adulterers stoned, only that this is what it says in the law.

[melodious]

Jesus is not 'commenting on' the law to clarify it, he is contradicting it.

And do you know why that is? It is because Jesus was created by Hellenized Jews in Alexandria, which abhorred the orthodox Jewish religion and sought reform through the Jesus/Joshua myth - the genocidal Joshua transformed into the gentle Jesus. Joshua and Moses, along with the pagan mystery religion godman, were the prototypes of the Christian savior. It is merely that simple, yet complex at the same time.

[Word_Swordsman]

Supporting Moses?? Not contradicting Moses?? What??? Yes, Jesus gives a reason why Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Then he gives a different teaching than Moses. If you are trying to say that Moses would have given the same teaching as Jesus if the peoples' hearts weren't hard, you can make that case, but it still would not change that what Moses wrote is different than what Jesus taught.

Jesus is not 'commenting on' on the law to clarify it, he is contradicting it.

Had Jesus ever once contradicted Moses the Jews would have set to stoning Jesus. Jesus had to meet the least of Moses' law or disqualify Himself as Messiah/Christ, then submit to stoning instead of escaping as was His custom. The principle I posed is simple. If a teacher tells his 8th grade science students lightening is the same electricity used in homes, that would be a teaching. If another teacher added to that, explaining how men can generate that same electricity, would the second teacher be contradicting the former? I say no. The second simply adds to the subject without damaging the original 8th grade message. More detail is added. If a third teacher added information about the dangers of electricity, would he be contradicting the first two? I say no.

Jesus didn't damage Moses in His teaching about why Moses allowed divorce. This topic is expanded upon in the New Testament, Paul describing details of when it is proper for a Christian to leave a spouse, or what to do if spouse leaves or is unfaithful, without contradicting Moses.

Furthermore, the jews were REQUIRED to stone the woman.

I would agree, Jesus never explicitly condemned stoning for adultery. However, he was not really in a position to "require" righteousness, rather, he embarassed his audience into not following through with the stoning.

You are mixing up topics, making this confusing. Please work on post organization in the future. Jesus many times required righteousness among fellow Jews, such as when finding the money changers in the temple. He overthrew the tables, drove out the animals, scourged the merchants. As a respected rabbi from his youth Jesus had a right to stand up for the law. The men who would accuse the adulterous woman in John 8 were themselves not righteous enough to carry out what the law required. Again, it is not known what Jesus wrote on the ground, but each and every one of those accusers were convicted by their conscience to the point they dared not carry out a stoning, required by law or not. Perhaps they had visited the woman in the past also.

I challenge you to find where Moses commanded any Jew, be he a priest, Levite, scribe, Pharisee, Sadducee, rabbi receiving a report of adultery or any sin he did not witness to take up responsibility for effecting a stoning. Further, where does it require any of those to preside in any way over a legitimate group having a right to stone someone? What you seem to promote is vigilante justice, a hanging party so to speak.

Again, where do you think it is said Jesus prohibited stoning?

I am not saying he prohibited the stoning. I am saying he acted in such a way that the law was not followed as stated.

So some master attorneys of the law brought a case to Jesus who caused them to disobey the law? I think you are looking at the whole of it in a less than reasonable manner.

For example, suppose A is required under the law to report to a probation officer this week. B, however, convinces A not to comply with the law and to skip his meeting with the probation officer. B has encouraged A to break the law, and his actions have helped contribute to a law being broken. This is what Jesus did, in my view.

Your example doesn't fit the case. Jesus never told the men not to stone the woman. He said one thing to the men, John 8:7 "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."

Note that Jesus merely suggested that whoever went first with throwing a stone, let him be without sin. They could have ignored that suggestion, but they each departed because of being convicted of their own sins. The advice Jesus gave was right down God's line. No person retaining sin ought to punish another person for sin, but rather always be in a position of righteousness and therefore qualified before God to enforce God's laws. The idea is never to be found being a hypocrite. God really hates hypocrisy. Had those men, bearing unforgiven sins, stoned the woman her blood would have remained on their hands. That puts an accuser in a tough position, who if becoming an executioner of the accused, rightfully deserves to be punished for his own sins. If without sin, get with it, toss the first stone without fear of being judged.

Now, you could say since they did not have the man there with her, that they were not following the law. However, by keeping them from stoning the woman, Jesus actions had the effect of the law not being followed. The law did not make the stoning optional. It was required. "They must be put to death."

The adulterous man being there or not wasn't an issue. Accusers remaining there was. The law required witnesses and accusers. The accusers didn't carry out a required stoning. Jesus, not being part of the accusation, not numbered as an accuser, was not obliged to carry out the stoning. In the absence of accusers His only recourse was to let the woman go free, adding that she ought not sin again.

3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

Well, it may be that the Pharisees were not among the witnesses. However, there were witnesses to the act according to John. You may be correct that Jesus himself, being neither a witness nor an accuser, was not required to take part in the stoning. Still, the law clearly stated that the woman must be stoned. The law was not followed, and Jesus clearly bears responsibility for the stoning not occurring.

If so then that claim can be backed up somewhere in the Bible.

I recommend you study the law itself before accusing Jesus of not following it. Nobody was authorized to go around stoning sinners on the basis of hearsay accusations.

I am willing to be corrected regarding who was "authorized" to do the stoning. However, it is clear, based on what the law says, that the stoning should have taken place. It was REQUIRED. I don't see that debating the issue of who would actually be doing the stoning changes the fact that the stoning was required, and that Jesus actions had the effect of having the law violated.

If you see or hear of a law being broken, do you always get involved in bringing justice to violators? Do you invoke "citizen's arrest" per your legal right? Again, Jesus didn't stop the men, but made a godly statement concerning qualifications of the first man to take up a stone. There was nothing illegal or improper about that. My wife had to do jury duty. One juror insisted on everyone voting to convict the accused who supposedly set his house on fire rather than let the sheriff sell it at auction to pay some bills. He wanted to lower the boom on the man. My wife asked him whether he always paid income tax on all income. He didn't answer, but did soften up. The accused was found not guilty due to no real evidence of a crime. The sheriff should have collected some real evidence or a witness or two.

Now, is acting in such a way that someone else violates the law itself a violation of the law? Well, Jesus himself says:

6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

You might argue that this applies only to causing children to sin, but it certainly does not seem like a good thing from a Jewish perspective to keep others from following the law.

Jesus was using a little child as an example of a true disciple. Causing anyone in Christ to sin is pretty bad. So, again, if Jesus didn't condemn stoning, in fact gave advice concerning the first to throw a stone, how did that mean Jesus violated the law? So far you are just posing an opinion He did that. Please support the opinion. I am inclined to leave this as is, simply walking away saying "micatala" believes Jesus caused someone to sin, and forget it. What does it matter if no supportable fact existed to support that belief? With one sentence Jesus caused masters of the law to violate the law! Do you really believe that?

[Blaze]

In fact, Jesus continually appealed to Moses, bringing Jewish thoughts back to the word of God instead of societal traditions, men's doctrines, which had gradually replaced the law of Moses, those laws often made more grievous than God made them.

An example of how Jesus dealt with the law was here: Mark 10:2-12 "And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. [3] And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? [4] And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. [5] And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. [6] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. [7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; [8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. [9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [10] And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. [11] And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

None of that contradicted Moses, but instead raised the standard of how men ought to treat a wife.

It seems to me it absolutely does contradict Moses. The OT gives one teaching on divorce and remarriage, Jesus a different one. Giving a "higher standard" is still giving a different teaching.

Not only does Jesus contradict Moses, but he subtly accuses Moses of being untrustworthy in his transmission of God's word/will as law. Jesus is suggesting here that Moses created law apart from, and in direct opposition to God's will. The rationalization for why Moses would do such a thing... the people were hard of heart.

Jesus is hardly endorsing Moses here as a reliable source for God's word. Moses is being accused of creating a law in direct conflict with God's will. The effect of this false law would be the faithful unknowingly sinning against God's will by obeying God's law. According to Jesus, they were committing adultery when they thought they were obeying Moses'/God's law.

Jesus does contradict Moses, and he makes that very clear when he states in the house of his disciples that those law abiding people are actually committing adultery.

[Jester]

This is a great subject. I thought I’d jump in (hope you don’t mind).

Supporting Moses?? Not contradicting Moses?? What??? Yes, Jesus gives a reason why Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Then he gives a different teaching than Moses. If you are trying to say that Moses would have given the same teaching as Jesus if the peoples' hearts weren't hard, you can make that case, but it still would not change that what Moses wrote is different than what Jesus taught.

I wanted to interject something of a middle ground between your position and Word Swordsman’s. I’d fully agree that Christ’s teaching is distinct from Moses’, and that one can’t say that the New Covenant upholds all the rules of the old. I would also say, however, that both Moses and Christ seem to be pushing in the same direction, and that this could easily be seen as an agreement on a deeper level. To explain:
My understanding of the first passage is that it was somewhat common not to actually divorce women, but simply to abandon them. As they were not allowed to hold jobs or own property in that culture, this took away their only realistic chance of survival (marriage – they couldn’t remarry without a divorce). Moses insisted that this was wrong.
A thousand years later, Christ comes along, and takes an even stronger position, that the divorce shouldn’t have happened in the first place. The letter of these laws don’t actually contradict, in that he does still give a condition by which divorce is acceptable, and Moses doesn’t outline such conditions. They do seem contradictory, however, but my thinking is that, as Christ indicated, the people under Moses weren’t ready to hear that part of the truth just yet.
All this is to say that both Moses and Christ, while arguing different things, are taking the most liberal view of women’s rights accepted by the cultures in which they existed. (Also pertinent is the fact that Christ’s position on divorce was much more strict than either of the major schools of thought of his day.)
So, would Moses have said the same as Christ in a different culture? I don’t know if there’s any way to even discuss that, but he seemed to be pushing in that general direction in his own time.

Jesus also gives a different teaching than "an eye for an eye."

I wanted to throw this in as being in the same sort of category. Before “an eye for an eye�, common practice was to find someone who’d stolen from you, and kill him and his entire family. “An eye for an eye� was an attempt to say “be fair, rather than sadistic, in your punishments�. So, yes, Christ definitely contradicts this one with his passage (sorry Word Swordsman, that’s a fact). I’d add, however, that it does help to pave the way for his teaching.

Continuing through the other points would just be more of the same, so I’ll stop there. Mostly, I hope my unwarranted commentary was more helpful than... otherwise.

[micatala]

I can accept the possibility that Jesus and Moses were "pulling in the same direction" or "in agreement to a great extent". However, the OP asks:

So I'm wondering, did Jesus, who by all accounts was a practicing Jew and, therefore, one would assume, supporter of the Old Testament, even say anything that could be interpreted to mean that the old laws are no longer valid?

I think it is absolutely clear that Jesus made statements that not only "could be interpreted to mean" but actually "explicitly state" that some of the old laws are no longer valid. The OT law said a man could divorce his wife and remarry. It was not required that the woman be an adulteress for this to be allowed; he could do it for most any reason.

According to Jesus' teaching, this law would no longer be valid. Divorce is not allowed except for marital unfaithfulness. Remarriage is in general not allowed either.


Now, I can accept some of the rationale for this new teaching that are offered above as being at least plausible, even reasonable. I can accept that Moses and Jesus may both have been acting with similar motivations and even to similar ends. However, going by what the law says and what Jesus says, I don't see how their can be any question that the anser to the question in the OP is "yes."


I will also point out to WS that Jesus experiences several "near death experiences" prior to his crucifixion. The fact that he never ended up getting stoned does not mean that he was not perceived as acting or teaching against the law.

[Jester]

I think it is absolutely clear that Jesus made statements that not only "could be interpreted to mean" but actually "explicitly state" that some of the old laws are no longer valid. The OT law said a man could divorce his wife and remarry. It was not required that the woman be an adulteress for this to be allowed; he could do it for most any reason.

I agree that Christ taught some things that directly contradict the Old Testament law. He seemed largely disinterested in the Old Covenant, and definitely ignored it when it suited his purpose to do so. By pointing out some of the similarities in spirit, I did not mean to imply otherwise.

According to Jesus' teaching, this law would no longer be valid. Divorce is not allowed except for marital unfaithfulness. Remarriage is in general not allowed either.


Now, I can accept some of the rationale for this new teaching that are offered above as being at least plausible, even reasonable. I can accept that Moses and Jesus may both have been acting with similar motivations and even to similar ends. However, going by what the law says and what Jesus says, I don't see how their can be any question that the anser to the question in the OP is "yes."

I’d agree overall, but would actually not have gone with this example myself. It seems a bit hazy. I’d have used his comment on dietary restrictions myself (but is that just editorializing?).

As far as the bottom line, with regard to the topic question, I do completely agree that there are some contradictions between Christ’s teachings and the Mosaic Law.

[micatala]

It seems Jester and I are largely in agreement.


To address Word Swordsman's analogy:

Had Jesus ever once contradicted Moses the Jews would have set to stoning Jesus. Jesus had to meet the least of Moses' law or disqualify Himself as Messiah/Christ, then submit to stoning instead of escaping as was His custom. The principle I posed is simple. If a teacher tells his 8th grade science students lightening is the same electricity used in homes, that would be a teaching. If another teacher added to that, explaining how men can generate that same electricity, would the second teacher be contradicting the former? I say no. The second simply adds to the subject without damaging the original 8th grade message. More detail is added. If a third teacher added information about the dangers of electricity, would he be contradicting the first two? I say no.

I don't believe this analogy on teaching about electricity is comparable.

Let's say one teacher tells his 8th grade students that there is no set upper or lower limits on the voltage that can be present in a lightning bolt, except 0 as a lower limit. Voltages can take on any non-negative value. Then, a second teacher comes along and says that the voltage in lightning bolts can only be between 500 and 1 million volts.

How could we possibly say that the second teacher is not contradicting the first?

Or suppose one legal scholar claims that the constitution allows the U.S. government to practice torture on enemy combatants. A second scholar holds that any torture practiced by the U.S. government is unconstitutional.

How could we possibly say that the second scholar is not contradicting the first?

The contradiction is clear, even if we do not know which of these statements are correct, or indeed, if any of them are correct.

[Word_Swordsman]

Not only does Jesus contradict Moses, but he subtly accuses Moses of being untrustworthy in his transmission of God's word/will as law. Jesus is suggesting here that Moses created law apart from, and in direct opposition to God's will. The rationalization for why Moses would do such a thing... the people were hard of heart.

Jesus outwitted all His opponents over legal questions by bringing Moses into the discussion rather than accept the ideas proposed by the then premier Rabbis, Shammai and Hillel, who often opposed one another. As for Jesus' comment on Moses, which was entirely proper and legal for a master of the law to do, Christians learn from Paul all the law was added because of sin and hardness of heart. The law pertained to sin. Every commandment from Moses was a necessary statement to lock in the standard of God toward the Jews. Had Israel been righteous all along there would never have been a single commandment from Moses, there being no need for laws.

Jesus is hardly endorsing Moses here as a reliable source for God's word. Moses is being accused of creating a law in direct conflict with God's will. The effect of this false law would be the faithful unknowingly sinning against God's will by obeying God's law. According to Jesus, they were committing adultery when they thought they were obeying Moses'/God's law.

You need to read Moses to learn what he said was adultery/fornication. Jesus was in total agreement. While divorce was allowed, because of hard hearted sinners making a decree approving of divorce necessary, the issue of a divorced man taking another woman, or vice-versa, except for fornication as cause for divorce, was correctly stated by Jesus.

Jesus does contradict Moses, and he makes that very clear when he states in the house of his disciples that those law abiding people are actually committing adultery.

You make your case on a half truth. Getting a divorce was not commission of adultery. The much older original law of God came before Moses, a law never once annulled by God or Moses. Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." That was God's intent all along, but allowed a set-aside in some cases. Divorce and hardness of heart were never part of God's plan for men, hence the reason law was added because of many other similar departures from God's will for man.

[micatala]

Not only does Jesus contradict Moses, but he subtly accuses Moses of being untrustworthy in his transmission of God's word/will as law. Jesus is suggesting here that Moses created law apart from, and in direct opposition to God's will. The rationalization for why Moses would do such a thing... the people were hard of heart.

Jesus outwitted all His opponents over legal questions by bringing Moses into the discussion rather than accept the ideas proposed by the then premier Rabbis, Shammai and Hillel, who often opposed one another.

Agreed. Jesus outwitted his opponents. Still, this does not negate that he gave a different teaching than Moses on divorce and on and eye for an eye and as Jester pointed out, on dietary teachings.

As for Jesus' comment on Moses, which was entirely proper and legal for a master of the law to do, Christians learn from Paul all the law was added because of sin and hardness of heart. The law pertained to sin. Every commandment from Moses was a necessary statement to lock in the standard of God toward the Jews. Had Israel been righteous all along there would never have been a single commandment from Moses, there being no need for laws.

Again, this does not negate the contradiction in the teachings between Jesus and Moses.

Jesus is hardly endorsing Moses here as a reliable source for God's word. Moses is being accused of creating a law in direct conflict with God's will. The effect of this false law would be the faithful unknowingly sinning against God's will by obeying God's law. According to Jesus, they were committing adultery when they thought they were obeying Moses'/God's law.

You need to read Moses to learn what he said was adultery/fornication. Jesus was in total agreement. While divorce was allowed, because of hard hearted sinners making a decree approving of divorce necessary, the issue of a divorced man taking another woman, or vice-versa, except for fornication as cause for divorce, was correctly stated by Jesus.

You are still skirting the issue. Even accepting that Jesus gave the correct teaching and agreed with Moses on the definition of divorce, he still gives a different teaching from Moses.

Jesus does contradict Moses, and he makes that very clear when he states in the house of his disciples that those law abiding people are actually committing adultery.

You make your case on a half truth. Getting a divorce was not commission of adultery. The much older original law of God came before Moses, a law never once annulled by God or Moses. Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." That was God's intent all along, but allowed a set-aside in some cases. Divorce and hardness of heart were never part of God's plan for men, hence the reason law was added because of many other similar departures from God's will for man.

The Genesis verse was not given as a law. Even if it were, it does not negate that Moses gave a different teaching than Jesus. You seem to be trying to explain away or justify or ignore that there is a contradiction.

If you want to say the Genesis verse gives another law, then now we have two Biblical teachings which contradict the Mosaic law.