The Law and the Israelites' Heart Problem

Generally when Christians think of “the Law,” they have a very distorted picture of it. It’s complicated by the fact that we DON’T live in the first-century nation of Israel, experiencing both the benefits and the flaws of Israel’s divinely ordained legal system.

Furthermore, in our modern culture, it’s hard for us to understand the stark difference between Israelite law and the legal codes of the other nations. Were there similarities? Of course there were! Other legal codes existed – in Sumer and Babylon, in particular. But Israelite law enforced protection of the poor and vulnerable, whereas other legal codes primarily protected property and the aristocracy. Also, Israelite law prioritized restitution, not just punishment of the wrongdoer. In addition, Israelite law avoided the sometimes brutal torture punishments found in other ancient legal codes. The Law wasn’t seen as a burden, but as a guarantee of rights and freedoms, comparable to modern American law.

Moses declared the following in Deuteronomy 4:5-8:

“Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’

“For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?"

The Mosaic Law was a mixture of various kinds of laws, including health-related, agricultural, family-related, inheritance law, judicial, laws concerning treatment of foreigners, provision for the poor, provision for ministering Levitical priests, and much more besides. Christians often only think of it in terms of ceremonial law or animal sacrifices, but it’s much more than just that.

In this article, I’d like to look at a certain class of laws, in order to illustrate the difficulty in declaring any part of the Law, “done away with in Christ.” After all, Jesus Himself declared in Matthew 24:12 that “because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.” That doesn’t just mean a complete rejection of ALL law – and historically, that’s not what happened in the first century, anyway. That simply meant justifying ignoring specific laws for a greater purpose, as it were. A good example of that mindset is found in Matthew 15:1-6:

Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”

He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.”

I’d like to begin with animal sacrifices as sin offerings in general, and then look at a specific instance of such an offering. One of the reasons for offering animal sacrifices as sin offerings to God was to teach people that there is a real, economic impact for sin. The animal that was being sacrificed represented substantial time and effort to raise, feed, and protect from predators before being sacrificed to cover a specific sin. The person making the sacrifice had to be in an economic position to be able to afford that sacrifice in the first place. And, although they generally didn’t make the sacrifice themselves, they still had to travel to deliver it to those whose responsibility it was to offer that sacrifice on their behalf – the priests.

To compare offering an animal sacrifice to cover a sin to modern law, think of it as paying an expensive fine in person for a civil or even criminal offense.

Aaron, two of his sons, and all of their descendants got the responsibility of being priests for the rest of the Israelites. (The other two were executed for disobedience.) But their responsibility went beyond just offering the prescribed sacrifices at the prescribed times.

One of their responsibilities was as an early form of doctor, qualified to examine a person or a house for plague, impose a quarantine, regulate people’s diets to avoid foods that might carry parasites (such as pigs), or even dictate how and when to wash hands. These are things that people wouldn’t have otherwise known to do in those days.

Jesus even referred to the law concerning plague in Matthew 8:1-4:

When He had come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him. And behold, a leper came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.”

Then Jesus put out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

And Jesus said to him, “See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

The laws concerning plague are found in Leviticus 13-14. If you read through them, you’ll notice that they describe the required animal sacrifice that was to be presented to a priest who would do the examination, and determine whether a person (or house) was now free of plague or not. Think of that as payment for a health checkup, in modern terms. There was even a provision for a “discount rate” if the person couldn’t afford the normal required sacrifice!

Now, consider the ripple effect of suddenly declaring that animal sacrifices for any kind of sin are no longer required. Would that include offerings to a priest to inspect a person or property for plague? Would people not need to worry about quarantining plague victims any more?

What about sacrifices for sin in general? Consider that while the Temple stood, the priests didn’t have any other trade. A large part of their support came from the animal sacrifices that were brought to them. One could say that with Jesus’ sacrifice, those sacrifices for sin were no longer necessary, but what would that have done to the priests and their ability to survive? Suddenly a large faction of Jewish believers in Jesus as the Messiah would have stopped bringing any sacrifices to the priests. That would have thrown the economy of Judea into chaos.

Is God the author of chaos?

You still might think that throwing the economy of Judea into chaos was an acceptable tradeoff for getting rid of animal sacrifices, now that Christ is our once-and-for-all sacrifice. I contend that that's evidence of love growing cold for those who would be most affected by such a drastic change. A bit like - for instance - developing a "disruptive" modern technology, such as automobiles, when there were only horse-drawn carriages before, or such as artificial intelligence. Maybe the benefits of such a technology outweigh the economic impact, especially on those who are most affected. But someone still has to pay the price.

What do we know from history? Well, we know that according to Clement, animal sacrifices continued to be offered at the Temple, while it was standing. Here’s an excerpt from his Epistle to the Corinthians, chapters 40-41:

These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things, being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.

But as early as 110 AD, Ignatius wrote this in his epistle to the Magnesians:

Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour you shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believes might be gathered together to God.

We know from history that the “sect of the Nazarenes” (see Acts 24:5) were known to observe the Mosaic Law - that is, to "Judaize" - while believing in Jesus as the Messiah. In other words, they didn’t see ANY of the Law as having been “done away in Christ.” This sect is mentioned by Epiphanus of Salamis, Jerome, and Augustine of Hippo.

This is what Epiphanus has to say about the Nazarenes:

1,1 Next after these come the Nazoraeans, at the same time as they (Cerinthians) or even before them—either together with them or after them, in any case their contemporaries. I cannot say more precisely who succeeded whom. For, as I said, these were contemporary with each other, and had ideas similar to each other’s. 1,2 For these people did not give themselves the name of Christ2 or Jesus’ own name, but that of “Nazoraeans.” (3) But at that time all Christians alike were called Nazoraeans. They also came to be called “Jessaeans”3 for a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch.

…

5,4 So when they were called Jessaeans then shortly after the Savior’s ascension and after Mark had preached in Egypt, in those times certain other persons, supposed followers of the apostles, seceded in their turn. I mean the Nazoraeans, whom I am discussing here. They were Jewish, were attached to the Law, and had circumcision. (5) But it was as though people had seen fire under a misapprehension. Not understanding why, or for < what > use, the persons who had kindled this fire were doing it—either to cook their rations with the fire, or burn some dead trees and brush, which are usually destroyed by fire—they kindled fire too, in imitation, and set themselves ablaze. 5,6 For by hearing just Jesus’ name, and seeing the miracles performed by the hands of the apostles, they came to faith in Jesus themselves. And since they found that he had been conceived at Nazareth and brought up in Joseph’s home, and for this reason is called “Jesus the Nazoraean” in the Gospel—as the apostles say, “Jesus the Nazoraean, a man approved by signs and wonders,” and so on—they adopted this name, so as to be called Nazoreans.

…

7,1 But these same sectarians whom I am discussing here disregarded the name of Jesus, and neither called themselves Jessaeans, kept the name of Jews, nor termed themselves Christians—but “Nazoraeans” supposedly from the name of the place “Nazareth.” But they are Jews in every way and nothing else. 7,2 They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do. For they do not repudiate the legislation, the prophets, and the books which are called Writings by the Jews and by themselves. They have no different views but confess everything in full accord with the doctrine of the Law and like the Jews, except that they are supposedly believers in Christ. (3) For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and that all things have been created by God, and they declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ. 7,4 They are perfectly versed in the Hebrew language, for the entire Law, the prophets, and the so-called Writings—I mean the poetic books, Kings, Chronicles, Esther and all the rest—are read in Hebrew among them, as of course they are among the Jews. (5) They are different from Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following ways. They disagree with Jews because of their belief in Christ; but they are not in accord with Christians because they are still fettered by the Law—circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest. (6)

Before continuing, let's look at one more law which has demonstrably led to love growing cold between one group of believers and another: Sabbath-keeping.

Now that Christ has died and risen from the dead, many Christians believe that it's acceptable to worship on Sunday, since that's (supposedly) the day of Christ's resurrection. But what about the Jews who continue to worship on the seventh-day Sabbath? What about the Jewish Christians in the first century, who continued to worship on the seventh-day Sabbath?

Historically speaking, after the destruction of the Temple and much of the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Judaism became much less "fashionable." It was no longer very popular for Gentiles to adopt Jewish practices. And after the failed Jewish revolt in 133 AD, the Romans completely destroyed the city of Jerusalem and rebuilt it, naming it Aelia Capitolina. All Jews were expelled from the city, and the remaining Christians elected a Gentile bishop of Jerusalem named Marcus. In order to placate the Romans, Marcus urged his congregation to forsake all Jewish practices - including Sabbath-keeping.

As the centuries passed, the divide between "Judaizing" Christians and Gentile Christians grew ever wider, as we saw above. Gentile Christians discarded anything that smacked of Judaism, including the seventh-day Sabbath. And that division directly resulted in not only a lack of love for their Jewish, "Judaizing" brothers in Christ, but outright persecution!

Now, I want to make a further point about the Mosaic Law in general. Just because the Law existed, didn’t make the people very willing to obey the Law. In the exact same way, not everyone is willing to obey the laws of the land (country, state, or city) today, either. In Deuteronomy 29:4, Moses lamented that the Israelites were still hard-hearted, and would often rebel against God’s will, even forty years after the Exodus from Egypt. That never changed, throughout the entirety of Old Testament times.

Moses prophesied that only after being cursed for rebelling against God and then finally being exiled and scattered, would the people truly repent and seek God again. Then God would regather them back to the land of Israel and “circumcise” their heart, and the hearts of all of their descendants. This symbolizes that they would finally see the impact of their sins on the next generation, and would truly repent and change their behavior. The hearts of the parents would finally be turned to the children, and the hearts of the children would be turned to their parents.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 describes the New Covenant in exactly those terms. And that’s what Jesus referenced, when He declared at Passover, “this is the New Covenant in My blood.”

Did all of the Jews believe at that time? Were ALL of their hearts circumcised? No, they weren’t. That hardness of heart continues to this day, even among people who profess faith in Jesus. That’s the whole point of Jesus’ statement that “because lawlessness would abound, the love of many will grow cold” – because their hearts weren’t circumcised!

When we pick and choose which parts of the Law to obey, we put ourselves in danger of exactly this. Now, of course, most of us aren’t part of the modern nation of Israel today. Most of us wouldn’t be able to keep those parts of the Law that pertain to the nation – such as the law concerning gathering tithes every third year to be given to the Levite, the fatherless and the widow (see Deut. 14:28-29). That happened at the time of the end-of-year wheat harvest – and since not everyone is a farmer today, we can’t easily apply this same law. But God’s intention for the Gentiles regarding the Law was for them to learn the ethical principles contained in it, so they could find ways to apply those principles in their own lands. Gentiles weren’t obligated to keep the Law as written, just as Acts 15 and Acts 21 explain.

This is the intent of Isaiah 2:1-5:

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the Lord’s house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
Many people shall come and say,
“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.

O house of Jacob, come and let us walk
In the light of the Lord.

References:

Moses and Ancient Near Eastern Laws
https://www.theology.edu/egypt3.htm

Clement, "Epistle to the Corinthians"
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Ignatius, "Epistle to the Magnesians"
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

Epiphanus of Salamis, "Panarion"
https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/ENG/Epiphanius%20of%20Salamis%20-%20The%20Panarion,%20Book%20I%20(Sects%201-46).pdf