To what extent did Jesus intend to replace the Torah?

by tiffowong (student)

AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy

“I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17)

To what extend did Jesus intend to replace the Torah?

John Drane (sub-election on Jesus replacing the law) – in booklet
N.T.Wright (especially the section on the antitheses) – in booklet
E.P.Sanders : historical figure of Jesus (Pg. 206 – end of chap) very useful for the disputes with Pharisees and Antitheses Jesus and Judaism ( pg 251 – 264 ) – very good for “let the dead burry their own dead” and the sayings on divorce

The sermon represents the first and the most extensive of five blocks of teaching. The Sermon on the Mount came before the mission Discourse (Mtt 10:5 – 10:42), the kingdom parables (Mtt 13:10 – 13:51), the pastoral care and forgiveness (Mtt 18:1 – 18:35) and the judgment (mtt 24:3 – 25:46). The five didactic structures are possibly meant to be a reflection of the five books of the Torah. This comparison appears to be confirmed by the message of fulfillment of the law. The teachings in the Sermon on the Mount therefore have a close relationship with the teachings in the Torah. The presentation of the Sermon sets rigorous standards – interpreted by the early church as a distinctive, universal ethic of Jesus in comparison with the Mosaic Law. The Sermon which is taken literally the quintessence of Jesus’ teachings. This might led some to believe Jesus’s intention in replacing the Torah, bringing in his new ethical teachings through the Sermon.

The Beatitudes are compared with the 10 commandments found in Exodus 20. It can be interpreted that God’s law begins with the 10 commandments and Jesus’s laws begin with the Beatitudes, reaffirming God’s will hence providing comfort and reassurance. The structure of the sentences are repetitive, starting with “blessed are…” stating the requirement, a demand for one to be in that specific group, and continued with “ for they will….” stating the hopes of Israel. The “Blessed” that every verse started with, is to be stowed the following groups with divine grace. Jesus was merely reaffirming and reiterating God’s will and demands thus intended as an admonishment to Christian antagonists. The Beatitudes describe the reversal of conditions that will take place in the future when the end-time rule of God became a consummated reality. It provides hope and places demands to those who are not within categories to change and be one of them. They also function as an introduction to many of the theme and demands which emerge in the sermon e.g. purity of heart before God. “Blessed are those who mourn” relate closely with Isaiah 61 where Jesus fulfills the prophet hence presenting him as a messianic figure and stressed his mission to ‘fulfill’. “the meek” inheriting the earth reveals that the earth is a land that can be given – relating to the ‘promised land’ in Deuteronomy 4, a book about Mosses. This verse relates the law, Jesus, mosses and the Kingdom of God together; suggesting that Jesus is the new Mosses, bring about laws. “blessed are those pure in heart” implied that one must not have a divided heart ; and again Jesus reiterated what was taught in Mark 6:24 – that “you cannot serve the rich and God”. The use of present tense in “Those who are persecuted for righteousness’s sake” supports the argument that the kingdom of God is so near that even following the law is not as important. Jesus did not intend to replace the Torah but merely prioritize the preparation for the coming of the Kingdom and unintentionally countered the Torah.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The strenuous nature of the commands in the Antitheses seem to impose strictures of perfect behavior, emphasizing “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect” (mtt 5:48). The old rules seemed to have changed in the Antitheses by using the same repetitive structure “you have heard…but I say”- where do not murder is changed to do not be angry, do not commit adultery to do not lust, do not make false promises to do not swear at all. Moreover, “an eye for an eye” is altered to “ turn the other cheek”, and hate your enemies to “love your enemies”. Matthew presented the teachings as a challenge by Jesus to his followers to review accepted moral and ethical pre- suppositions of the Jewish culture and apply a more strenuous ethic based on love. The sermon might be seen as a set of rules designed to replace the Torah. The formula of each implies that Jesus is offering a new set of ethical teachings. This view is held by K.Käsemann – “Jesus overrides the law with unparalleled authority”.

However, Jesus is not actually replacing the law. Taking the adultery example, Jesus is just dealing with the roots of adultery, abolishing lusting. He is just redefining the law, and stressing the fact that committing what is condemned will get you to hell. “cut it off and throw it away” is only a means to engage audiences, used by rabbinic teachers in Jesus’ time. Hyperboles were used as teaching method e.g. in the wisdom literature (proverbs 15), as a means to engage people instead of asking them to harm themselves – what’s forbidden in the Torah and the Ten commandments. Jesus did not intend to replace the Torah and was merely clarifying and reiterating it. The commands should not be taken literally as they might be distinctive to time and place. It can also be said that the coming of the kingdom required ethical obedience to God and Jesus was laying out moral teachings within this context. The emphasis of the antitheses is “on a mode of Torah intensification”. Instead of defining closely the outward actions necessary for keeping the Torah hence showing one’s loyalty to God’s covenant like the Pharisees had done, Israel was challenged by Jesus to discover the meaning of the commandments in terms of a totally integrated loyalty of heart and act.

Additionally, N.T wright suggested that Jesus did not intend to replace the Torah, but instead produce a radically different way of being Israel in real-life Palestinian situations as the ruling interpretations of the Torah would lead to being Israel in the wrong way, leading to destruction. He rebuked the interpretations and modifications of the Torah and oral traditions by the Pharisees, suggesting a totally different approach and result following the very basic commands of God.

Pericopes that emerged in response to challenges from Jesus’ opponents, predominantly the Pharisees, suggested that Jesus was proposing some form of Torah replacement in his teachings.

The dispute in the cornfield (mark 2:23) took place when Jesus was going against the Sabbath law – “plucking heads of grain”. Jesus seemed to go against the Torah and setting example to abolish it. However, this accusation is not justified as it is only contravening the oral tradition, not the Torah. Furthermore, technically it was the disciples who broke the law - “his disciples began to pluck heads of grain”. Jesus did not intend to replace the Torah as it was not the Torah he was breaching at the first place. He was trying to rebuke the Pharisees and to bring forth the real purpose of the Sabbath – that it is made to fit in humans, not humans to fit the Sabbath. One should appeal to the restful purposes of the Sabbath and not blindly following laws. Jesus was not replacing the Torah but instead changing the attitudes one should have towards it – emphasizing what God’s will and purpose really is.

The Dispute over hand washing (Mark 7:1-19) recounts the disciples eating without washing their hands – a cleansing ritual that was significant and important in the practices of the Pharisees. The accusation on Jesus trying to replace the Torah is again not justified as the cleansing was only written in the oral tradition. The Pharisees admitted that it is “according to the tradition of the elders”, not the Torah. Additionally, it was Jesus’ disciples who broke the law – not Jesus himself. Again, Jesus broke the oral tradition to demonstrate the flaw in the arguments by the Pharisees – “you abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition”. Jesus was emphasizing the importance of the commandments hence the Torah. His intention was to reprimand the Pharisees and how their tradition such as the Corban undermines the Torah itself. He was not replacing the Torah but instead underlines the initial purpose of it. It can be argued that these were intended as an admonishment to Jewish religious leaders and not a replacement of the Torah.

Jesus’ disputes with the Pharisees and Scribes on the healing of the paralytic based on the accusation of blasphemy ( Mark 2:5) Only God can forgive sins and that in the third book of the , states that he that blasphemes the name of the Lord "shall surely be put to death". By healing the paralytic, Jesus seemed to be guilty of blasphemy and therefore replacing the Torah by his actions. However, the accusation cannot be justified as in Leviticus 4:2 – there is a system by which humans (priests) can forgive sins. Jesus is only bypassing the temple system, but not disregarding and replacing the Torah. Furthermore, there is nothing new with what Jesus is doing – “make right the things he’s done wrong” (Samuel 12:3) , stating it is possible for one to forgive sins as Samuel does it for David. Jesus is not replacing the Torah but solely “presenting himself as the new temple”.

Lastly and most importantly, “let the dead bury their own dead” (Mtt 8:21-22) presents the strongest evidence that Jesus was trying to replace the Torah – making the disciple to violate not only the filial duty but the 5th commandment to “honour your father and mother”. This seemed to be a direct violation and disobey of the Torah. Hangel highlights that this counters the normal and common Graeco-Roman piety and also the mosaic legislation. This is not something that directs to the Jews but to the gentiles as well. This presents resemblance with the story of the rich young man – being asked to surrender whatever was previous to them; and that the law is held not to be adequate. However, despite the compelling evidence given in this verse that Jesus was intending to replace the Torah, Jesus was merely suggesting that he was prepared to challenge the adequacy of the Mosaic dispensation if necessary. Furthermore, it can be said that the coming of the kingdom is so near and imminent that it supersedes the Torah. The preparation of the coming of the kingdom is being prioritized over everything, even the strict following of the Torah. Jesus viewed the coming of the kingdom as something so important that superseding the requirements of piety and the Torah relatively trivial.

Jesus is intention is not to replace the law, but to intensify it. Torah intensification can be a result of the coming of the kingdom, and the requirement on ethical obedience to God. Jesus was intensifying the Torah, laying out moral teachings within this context. In Mark 10:1-22, Jesus answered the question posted by the Pharisees to test him – ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” using their knowledge in Moses’ commands in Deuteronomy. There is a law on divorce in the Torah but it is only there as a concession to human weakness. Jesus did not intend to replace the law, but to intensify it; demanding more from the law has already stated, demanding more of you than the law lays down. Similarly in the story of the rich young man, Jesus implied that it is not enough that the man had kept all the commandments. It got to be matched with active faith, an ethical requirement that was originally in God’s commandments implicitly. Jesus is therefore reiterating hence intensifying the demands and wills of God, laying out moral teachings basing on the obedience required to enter the kingdom.

The works of Torah functioned as symbolic praxis, as the set of badges which demonstrated both to observant Jews and to their neighbours that they were the people of the covenant. Jesus did not intend to replace the Torah despite the fact that throughout the Sermon it might seem, but intended to reinforcing and intensifying the spirit of the Torah in order for us to meet the demands of God required to the entering of the coming kingdom. Further, he criticized the oral Torah and modified it with a more universal ethic – the original will of God. Jesus’s teachings can also be seemed as interim ethics for an audience awaiting the imminent arrival of the Kingdom. Therefore Jesus’s intention was not to replace the Torah.

N.T Wright: c.7 Stories of the kingdom (2)

N.T Wright

Sanders: Jesus and Judaism pg. 252