This is a bit of a follow up thread to my old Yahweh and Yeshua comparison and contrast thread, and in a way a companion to the Did Jesus abolish the law thread. In this thread though I want to specifically look at some of the laws in Leviticus and compare to Jesus' teachings and actions regarding said laws, and have a discussion on that.
Now, to cover some basics from the start:
1. We know that Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it.
2. Jesus does instruct His followers to listen to the Pharisees, but to follow what they preach, and not what they do because they were hypocrites. (This is an important point I want to hit on because to me it's unclear whether here Jesus is truly advocating a strict adherence to the Levitical laws, or if this is more of a "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" type teaching, where He doesn't necessarily agree with Caesar but acknowledges that we do need to submit to those in authority as an example of submission to the Father.)
3. Similarly to the above, Jesus does instruct a man that He healed to go to the priests and perform the ritual sacrifice.
4. In contrast, to all of the above, Jesus forbids the stoning of the woman caught in adultery. (This is significant and cannot be brushed aside for if we are to believe that Jesus advocates and condoned following the Levitical laws to a tee, then in order to be directly in submission to what YHWH commanded, He would have had to have had her put to death. But this is not what happens.)
So as we look over the basics that we know, we see that when we get to point 4 we find ourselves in a bit of a conundrum, because He ends up doing the exact opposite of what the Levitical law requires. Of course a common solution given to this would be that He advocated the law before He set the new covenant, but that seems to be on a whim when Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever. If anything the cross would start the new covenant.
I'd like to know your thoughts.
Now, to cover some basics from the start:
1. We know that Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it.
2. Jesus does instruct His followers to listen to the Pharisees, but to follow what they preach, and not what they do because they were hypocrites. (This is an important point I want to hit on because to me it's unclear whether here Jesus is truly advocating a strict adherence to the Levitical laws, or if this is more of a "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" type teaching, where He doesn't necessarily agree with Caesar but acknowledges that we do need to submit to those in authority as an example of submission to the Father.)
3. Similarly to the above, Jesus does instruct a man that He healed to go to the priests and perform the ritual sacrifice.
4. In contrast, to all of the above, Jesus forbids the stoning of the woman caught in adultery. (This is significant and cannot be brushed aside for if we are to believe that Jesus advocates and condoned following the Levitical laws to a tee, then in order to be directly in submission to what YHWH commanded, He would have had to have had her put to death. But this is not what happens.)
So as we look over the basics that we know, we see that when we get to point 4 we find ourselves in a bit of a conundrum, because He ends up doing the exact opposite of what the Levitical law requires. Of course a common solution given to this would be that He advocated the law before He set the new covenant, but that seems to be on a whim when Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever. If anything the cross would start the new covenant.
I'd like to know your thoughts.
Last edited: