Jesus And The Law: Obedience And Man's Law

Jesus's actions during his lifetime have been the subject of much debate, with some arguing that he broke the law and others asserting that he did not. The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of the law and the specific context in which his actions took place. During his ministry, Jesus challenged and broke certain traditional Jewish interpretations of religious laws, such as those related to the Sabbath. However, he did not violate the Old Testament laws themselves or any civil laws of his time.

Jesus was often accused by the Pharisees and other religious leaders of breaking the Sabbath law by healing people on that day. They saw this as 'work', which was forbidden on the Sabbath. However, Jesus defended his actions, arguing that doing good and helping those in need should not be confined to specific days. He prioritised mercy, love, and human well-being over strict legalistic interpretations of the law.

Additionally, when brought before Pilate, Jesus was accused of three crimes: misleading the nation, opposing paying taxes to Caesar, and claiming to be the Messiah, a king. However, Pilate found him innocent of these charges, and there is no evidence that Jesus broke any Roman civil laws during his lifetime.

Therefore, while Jesus may have challenged and broken certain traditional interpretations of the law, he did not violate the core Old Testament laws or civil laws of his time. His actions and teachings prioritised love, mercy, and justice, providing a new understanding of the law's true purpose and spirit.

Jesus broke Jewish law by healing on the Sabbath

Jesus was accused of breaking Jewish law by healing people on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was the seventh day of the week, when the Israelites were to rest, remembering that God created the universe in six days and then rested on the seventh (Genesis 2:1–3). God instituted the Sabbath for the Israelites when he gave Moses the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8–11).

Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath law by healing people on that day. The gospels record several instances of this: Simon Peter’s mother-in-law in Peter’s home (Mark 1:29–31); a man with a withered hand in the synagogue (Mark 3:1–6); a man born blind in Jerusalem (John 9:1–16); a crippled woman in a synagogue (Luke 13:10–17); a man with dropsy at a Pharisee’s house (Luke 14:1–6); a demon-possessed man in Capernaum (Mark 1:21–28); and a lame man by the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1–18).

Jesus was also accused of breaking the Sabbath when his disciples picked and ate some heads of grain as they walked through a field (Luke 6:1–2).

However, Jesus did not break the Sabbath law as outlined by God under the Old Covenant. He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it (Matthew 5:17). The Pharisees had added their own rules and traditions for keeping the Sabbath and elevated them to the level of God's instructions. Jesus broke the Pharisees' laws, not God's law.

Jesus referred to himself as the Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). He proclaimed that he is greater than the law and has authority over the laws that govern the Sabbath day. He is the one who made all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16) and instituted the Sabbath day.

Jesus healed on the Sabbath to help people, to glorify God, and to remind people that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).

Jesus challenged the rigid understanding of the Pharisees

The Pharisees' understanding of God was that He is primarily one who makes demands, and the Scriptures of the Old Testament were a set of rules that must be kept at all costs. In contrast, Jesus, as well as the Old Testament believers, saw God as "gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love" (Psalm 145:8).

The Pharisees also believed that God looked only at their external compliance with the law, whereas Jesus believed that God looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). For example, Jesus equated the lustful look, which expresses the desire of the heart, with the actual committing of adultery (Matthew 5:27-28).

The Pharisees had also devised hundreds of elaborate but petty rules for interpreting the law of God, and they had elevated these man-made rules to the level of Scripture, so that breaking one of their rules was seen as violating the law of God itself. These rules obscured the true intent of God's law and, in some cases, actually violated it (Mark 7:9-13).

Jesus challenged the Pharisees' trivial and burdensome rules for keeping the Sabbath. For example, the Pharisees objected when Jesus' disciples plucked and ate heads of grain as they walked through the grain fields on the Sabbath, as this was considered work and, therefore, a violation of the Sabbath. Jesus, however, saw the disciples' actions as fulfilling God's intention regarding the Sabbath, not breaking it (Matthew 12:1-8).

On another occasion, the Pharisees objected when Jesus healed a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath, accusing Him of breaking the Sabbath law (Matthew 12:9-14). Jesus responded by asking if it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath, and stating that He was working just as His Father was working (John 5:17).

Jesus also challenged the Pharisees' understanding of the law by declaring all foods clean, contrary to the Old Testament prohibition against eating certain foods (Mark 7:14-19). He re-defined what made a person unclean, focusing on a person's faithfulness and acts of love and goodness rather than outward signs such as diet, circumcision, dress, or Sabbath observance.

Jesus consistently taught that the purpose of the law is to lead people to love, and He was willing to break Old Testament laws to prioritize love. For example, He declined to participate in the execution of a woman caught in adultery, forgiving her instead, despite the law commanding her execution (John 7:53-8:11).

Jesus' approach to Scripture was to question and challenge how it was interpreted and practiced, always in the name of love. He saw no problem with breaking particular commands if it promoted people's needs and love.

Jesus broke the Pharisees' laws, not God's

Jesus was a figure of controversy during his time, with many religious leaders accusing him of breaking the law. However, the answer to the question of whether Jesus broke the law is more complicated than a simple yes or no. While Jesus did break the Pharisees' laws, he did not break God's laws.

The Pharisees were the religious elites of their time, holding a stringent interpretation of the Law of Moses, also known as the Torah or the Mosaic Law. They were deeply committed to preserving and practising the law in its minutest details and saw Jesus as a threat to their traditional views and authority. Jesus challenged their interpretation of the law, prioritising the promotion of human well-being, justice, and mercy over legalism.

One of the main points of contention between Jesus and the Pharisees was the Sabbath law. The Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath law by healing people on this holy day. However, Jesus defended his actions, arguing that he was "working" as his "Father" was working and that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He also questioned their interpretation of the law, highlighting the spirit of the law over its strict text.

In addition to breaking the Sabbath law, Jesus was also accused of breaking other Mosaic regulations, such as dietary restrictions and cleanliness laws. However, it is important to note that these accusations were based on the accusers' interpretation of these laws. From Jesus' perspective, his actions and interpretations fell within the purview of the Law of Moses, and thus he did not break any law.

Furthermore, Jesus stated that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it, bringing a new understanding and covenant. His teachings and actions guided by love, mercy, and forgiveness are the essence of his commitment to the law.

In conclusion, while Jesus did break the Pharisees' laws, he did not break God's laws. His actions and interpretations revealed a deeper, more compassionate, and inclusive understanding of the law, prioritising love, mercy, and justice over legalism.

Jesus was accused of breaking Roman law

The Roman perspective on Jesus's actions is complex. On the one hand, he was technically a citizen of a client kingdom and subject to its laws. Additionally, Jesus's entry into Jerusalem during Passover, a time when riots often broke out, may have caused concern for the Romans. The local elite, the Sanhedrin, arrested Jesus to prevent a potential uprising and accused him of blasphemy, a charge that would hold weight in Roman law.

Despite the accusations, Pilate found no legal cause to execute Jesus. However, he still allowed the execution to take place, possibly due to fears of a riot if he released Jesus, who was beloved by the crowd.

In conclusion, while Jesus was accused of breaking Roman law, Pilate ultimately found him innocent of any charges. The complex dynamics between the Jewish authorities, Roman government, and the people influenced the outcome of Jesus's trial and eventual execution.

Jesus' trial broke Mosaic law

Jesus's trial broke Mosaic Law in several ways. Firstly, the testimony of an accomplice was not allowed, yet Judas, the betrayer, was involved in the apprehension of Jesus and stood by while the soldiers captured him. Secondly, the accused could not be questioned by a private individual, but Jesus was taken to Annas, the former high priest, and then Caiaphas, the current high priest. Thirdly, no legal proceedings could take place at night, yet Jesus was taken before Annas and Caiaphas at night. Fourthly, the Sanhedrin, the Jewish judges, brought charges against Jesus themselves, whereas witnesses were supposed to bring charges. They then sought false witnesses to support their case.

Fifthly, capital offenses could not be tried on a preparation day for the Sabbath or a high holy day, yet Jesus's trial took place the day before the Passover. Sixthly, capital trials had to last more than one day, yet Jesus's trial did not. Seventhly, there had to be two or three agreeing witnesses, and they had to cast the first stones, but there were no true witnesses against Jesus. Eighthly, the accused had to have a "friend in court" to defend them, but Jesus had no one. Ninthly, no one can accuse themselves, yet Jesus agreed that he was who he claimed to be.

Tenthly, the high priest is not allowed to grandstand, but Caiaphas rent his clothes and accused Christ of blasphemy. Eleventhly, the accused must be given ample time to defend themselves, but Jesus was not. Twelfthly, if a capital crime results in a unanimous decision against the accused, the case is thrown out. Any members of the Sanhedrin who may have defended Christ were not invited to the court session. Thirteenthly, the trial was held at Caiaphas' palace instead of the proper court. The next morning, part of the Sanhedrin convened at the proper place to give the appearance of legality.

Fourteenthly, bribery disqualifies a member of the court, yet the court bribed Judas to turn on Christ. Fifteenthly, the judges are not allowed to assault the accused, but Jesus was assaulted. Sixteenthly, the Sanhedrin changed the charges against Jesus from blasphemy to treason, which was illegal under Mosaic Law. Seventeenthly, the accused must be informed of the charges against them, but Jesus was not informed of the charges at the time of his arrest. Eighteenthly, the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction in the case against Jesus, as they had lost the right to try capital cases around forty years prior.

Nineteenthly, ecclesiastical law prohibited any member of the Sanhedrin from sitting in judgment of any accused if they had any personal dealings with the individual that might cause them to be impartial, yet almost all of the Sanhedrin members who tried Jesus were related to Annas. Twentiethly, the Sanhedrin was prohibited from meeting during the Passover, but they ignored this prohibition. Twenty-firstly, no one had charged Jesus with anything, yet Caiaphas, the High Priest, pronounced him guilty. Twenty-secondly, Mosaic Law states that a person worthy of death must be put to death at the mouth of two or three witnesses, but there were no true witnesses against Jesus, only false ones.

Twenty-thirdly, the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction in the case against Jesus, as he had not been lawfully arrested and charged. Twenty-fourthly, they could not prove Jesus's guilt. Twenty-fifthly, Jesus was not allowed to introduce witnesses of his own. Twenty-sixthly, an individual's confession could not be the only evidence, yet Jesus agreed that he was who he claimed to be. Twenty-seventhly, a criminal case where a death sentence is pronounced cannot be concluded before the following day, but the Sanhedrin ignored this rule. Twenty-eighthly, King Herod, who had no jurisdiction in the matter, was involved in the trial. Twenty-ninthly, Pilate, the Roman governor, broke Roman law by turning Jesus over to the mob to be crucified, instead of making a decision himself.

Frequently asked questions