THE THEOLOGIANS EDWARDS AND STOTT ON THE LAW OF MOSES
Did Jesus retain the Law of God in the first five books of the Bible? Plenty of
experts say yes. If he did he should not be respected as a moral authority.
John Stott says that Jesus “kept up the custom of worship in a synagogue every
Sabbath. The complaints made about his behaviour as being unconventional for a
religious teacher – he and his disciples were willing to heal on the Sabbath,
did not fast, did not wash their hands before meals, and ate meals with
‘sinners’ – did not refer to acts which were technically illegal under the
written ‘law of Moses’. It is significant that his brother James, who became a
Christian, is said to have observed that law piously throughout his life”
(Essentials, page 56). Stott says Jesus never contradicted anything in the Old
Testament.
However, liberal scholar David Edwards disagrees with John Stott who he accused
of going too far when he said that Jesus never disputed any doctrine in the Old
Testament (Essentials, page 56).
John 10:8 where Jesus says that all who came before him to teach religion were
robbers and were not listened to is taken to be an example. But none of the
prophets were perfect. Jesus is accusing them of being bad and liars but that is
not the same as saying that God did not speak through them. Jesus was very clear
that the revelations given through the prophets could not be broken or ignored
but carry the authority of God.
And since the gospel respects the Old Testament it is probable that the robbers
were not the Bible-writing prophets at all.
Edwards supposes that if Jesus reverenced the scriptures well there would be no
explanation for the division between the Jews and him. That is nonsense for
Jesus sought to add new doctrines to the revelation of the Law. He wanted to
form a cult centred on himself as supreme revealer of God and the Jews did not
think he was worthy. He told the Jews that they were fanatical about the
traditions and customs which he despised. Jesus wanted to add updates to the
Jewish religion and be its prophet and they did not want that.
Edwards held that it was very improbable that Christ had a copy of the entire
Old Testament for it would have been very difficult to carry and too expensive
for him to buy (page 58). The reason for this assumption is that Edwards desires
to undermine the doctrine that Jesus respected the Law to the letter and was
worried about the exact wording of it for if he had no book he would not have
taken the text very seriously. If you don’t worry about the exact text then you
do not consider the document wholly reliable. Jesus had wealthy friends as the
gospels admit. Martha and Mary and Lazarus and Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus
for example. They could have given him the scriptures. Elders of synagogues
would have let him look at their scrolls. He bore the title of Rabbi Jewish
minister.
Edwards feels that if Jesus had really been a fundamentalist and not a liberal
about the Law of Moses in the Bible he could have been a Sadducee rejecting the
doctrines about angels and spirits which are not in it (page 60). But Jesus
could have had other reasons for accepting these doctrines. New doctrines do not
necessarily imply that the old ones were wrong or are being contradicted.
It does not enter Edward’s head that the things he takes as indications that
Jesus did to believe all that was written before in the scriptures could have
been errors or lies and not intended to do that. That is the most likely thing
when the records never state clearly and frankly that Jesus disagreed with some
scriptural statements.
Edwards seems to be saying that Jesus stood by most of the Law but had some
faults with it.
Stott saw plenty of holes in Edwards’ analysis. Stott observes that Edwards’
belief that the hostility between Jesus and the Jews indicates that he opposed
their scriptures contradicts the biblical evidence that it was their traditions
he was against for he cited scripture to defend his opposition (page 86). “Even
in the debate over divorce…what Jesus criticised was not Moses but the hardness
of human hearts, and the direction in which he led his hearers was not away from
the Pentateuch but back to the creation narrative”. Again, in ‘declaring all
foods clean’ (Mk 7:19), he was not saying that the Law’s dietary regulations had
never been God’s will, but that they were a temporary divine arrangement, which
was now fulfilled in the purity of heart demanded in the Kingdom of God” (page
87).
Jesus is being thought to have changed the laws that were never meant to be
permanent. I can accept that that might be true of the divorce law (Deuteronomy
24) for it does not say that divorce is right but that a man should not take
back his first wife after divorcing her if she has got married and divorced
again in the meantime for she is defiled. The text is implying that divorce is
only tolerated and endured by God. There is no evidence in the Law that the
divorce laws were temporary though Jesus might have thought they were. If he
made a mistake and thought they were then how he approached Moses' divorce law
cannot be taken as evidence that he was contradicting Moses. The laws never
permitted remarriage which supports the view that Jesus never undermined or
declared the divorce laws changed at all when he forbade remarriage. Stott is
wrong to think that Jesus did away with the purity laws. If Jesus made all food
clean by a miracle that doesn’t mean the law banning the eating of unclean food
is wrong or done away. It just means it isn’t needed any more.
The Bible does not say that any ceremony of the Law was done away. If a ceremony
is fulfilled and no longer observed that is not doing away with it.
The argument that Jesus kept the ceremonial law for us and that it is abolished
is unsuccessful.
Incidentally, it is silly to argue that the Sabbath must be celebrated on a
Saturday and that God cannot switch it to another day because it would be
immoral and that if he does that then he has called bad good! The fact that a
Sabbath is needed and should be observed does not mean that it has to be on a
certain day. That is why if Saturday is abolished as a Sabbath it does not mean
that morality has changed and is arbitrary as long as a new day is designated in
its place. To change a day would not infer that the rest of the Law is
invalidated or that morality is questionable. The Sabbath was to remember God
resting after making the world and the universe in six days. That could be
remembered on a Sunday as well. The Sabbath falls at different times in
different parts of the world and God is not strict about what day is used as
long as it is used to remember the seventh day of creation.
However, there is no evidence of a switch from Saturday to Sunday at all in the
Bible.
Edwards uses lies and speculation to try and make Jesus look like a liberal
Christian. Stott's approach is intelligent and evidence based.