There is a slogan making the rounds in church circles (especially in the U.S.) which asks “What would Jesus do?” It is abbreviated WWJD? and the letters feature on everything from T-shirts to jewellery. They act both as a reminder to the person wearing them and as an opening to a Christian witness when the uninformed ask what they stand for.

I love the slogan, because I long to see Christians literally following the teachings of Jesus instead of following the various doctrines which have been created in his name. I believe that a Christian is a follower and imitator of Jesus; so anything that gets people thinking about what Jesus would do in any given circumstance is a step in the right direction.

Parents especially find the WWJD? practice helpful in getting their young people to stay on the straight and narrow. Teens refrain from smoking, drinking, swearing, telling dirty jokes, and associating with unseemly characters as a response to the question whenever it comes up in their mind. They behave respectfully, go to church regularly, and avoid sexual contact with others.

But I am still concerned that this new trend is being heavily influenced by a misunderstanding with regard to who the real Jesus is. Too many young people are asking themselves “What would a false Jesus (or Jesuses) do?” (WWFJD?) and the answers they are coming up with do not resemble the real biblical Jesus of history.

Some of the false Jesuses have reunited families, enabled people to get off drugs, to avoid bad social influences, and to stop gambling. They have brought people back to church meetings and Bible studies, reformed criminals, helped people to overcome stress, to stay healthier, to find jobs, and to gain promotions. Much of this is commendable. But the one thing they do not do is to save souls. Not one person will find eternal life through the false Jesuses that exist only in their imaginations.

Reforms can be accomplished through government organisations, through service clubs, and through other individuals and organisations which make no claim to giving eternal life. But eternal life is something that can only come from God himself. It is a miracle of such proportions that you can be sure that there will be no room for cheating on the instructions to obtain it. If you really want to receive eternal life, then it would pay you to read the fine print carefully, and not to fall for any counterfeits.

Last night I had a dream. I had purchased an extremely cheap non-refundable ticket on an ocean cruise… something I’ve often dreamed of being able to afford. But when I got to the docks, I discovered that the cruise “ship” was an inflatable dingy, which was so constructed that if I were to move at all on it, it would simply sink. Nothing I could do would make the “ship” live up to my expectations, and it was too late to get a refund.

This is how it is with false Jesuses. They may work fine when it comes to some social issues, like helping people to adjust to life in modern society. But when you move out onto the oceans of life after death, they are totally useless. And by the time most people realise that, it is too late to get a refund.

I would like to discuss a number of different types of false Jesuses that have confused people, and which have actually led them away from the genuine Jesus of the Bible. There is a lot of overlap between these various Jesuses, and some will almost seem to be identical, since most of us have borrowed from several to get a vague picture in our minds of how Jesus would act in various circumstances.

The Orthodox Jesus

We’ll start with the Orthodox Jesus. This is the one that follows the fundamental doctrinal teachings of whatever church he happens to be attending. The Orthodox Jesus would never think to question or challenge local church teachings, although he would definitely challenge the teachings of any group that was labelled a cult, or otherwise identified as being outside the mainstream of orthodoxy.

Obviously, this Jesus contradicts the Jesus of the Bible, who was actually executed as a heretic by the orthodox religious leaders of his day.

The Law-Abiding Jesus

Next, there is the Law-Abiding Jesus. This one would never think to disobey any of the laws of the land. He would regard the police force as upholders of righteousness, because they protect law-abiding citizens from the criminal elements in our society.

This Jesus also contradicts the biblical Jesus, who was on the run from Jewish authorities for having broken certain regulations with regard to working on the Sabbath, and for having made some questionable statements about whether or not his followers needed to pay taxes. His hideout was finally discovered with the help of a traitor from his own gang, and he was arrested by the civil authorities on the grounds that his behaviour and teachings were a threat to the stability of the government. He was eventually executed as a common criminal.

The Patriotic Jesus

Then there is the Patriotic Jesus. He loves his country, and would gladly lay down his life in defence of all that it stands for.

But the real Jesus was instrumental in challenging the corruption that existed in his country. (It existed because of compromise between the religious authorities and the political authorities.) Jesus prophesied the destruction of his own country, which he said would serve as a stepping stone to the development of a better government that would be invisible and universal. He called this revolutionary new government “the kingdom of heaven”.

The Traditional Jesus

And what about the Traditional Jesus? The Traditional Jesus has many of the same traits that the Jesuses we have already listed have; but he also supports behaviours and practices that are not required by the laws of the land, but which are just part of the local culture. He is conservative, and he looks with suspicion on anyone who would try to change the traditional ways of doing things, whether it be religious practices or social taboos.

This is the one who promotes good table manners, Sunday worship, white shirts and ties, frequent use of terms like ‘sir’ and ‘madam’, and circumspect behaviour at all social events. By contrast, the real Jesus was not afraid to call religious leaders “damned hypocrites”, to knock over tables in the Temple, to break Sabbath regulations, to associate with publicans and sinners, and to eat food with unwashed hands. He actually instructed his followers not to use terms like sir (which comes from ‘sire’ and means ‘father’), Mr. (which means ‘master’) and Madam (the feminine equivalent of ‘master’).

Other Conservative Jesuses

There are other similar Jesuses, such as the Polite Jesus, the Popular Jesus, the Successful Jesus, or the Respectable Jesus.

They, too, always know how to behave in such a way as to avoid scandal, and not rock the boat. There is a great deal of unity between all of these various Jesuses, so that it is often difficult to tell one from the other. Unfortunately, aspects of each of these false Jesuses come to mind these days whenever you ask church-educated people, “What Would Jesus Do?” And they usually overlook what the real Jesus would do, as a result.

The Trendy Jesus

There has arisen yet another Jesus in recent years: He is the Trendy Jesus. At first glance, he appears to be nearer to the radical Jesus of the Bible. But on close examination, he is a disappointment too. The Trendy Jesus does choose to question the way things are going, but his suggestions for change always fall short of actually exposing all of the other Jesuses for the phonies that they are. What the Trendy Jesus wants is minor changes to the system without losing the support of the very system that he seeks to change.

Trendy Jesuses introduce new fads and gimmicks (such as WWJD? engraved on bracelets and necklaces), modern music, variations to the worship service, changes in dress regulations, emphases which reflect political trends toward increased environmental awareness, greater tolerance of racial, religious, and sexual differences, and moves to get the government (always the government, and not the Trendy Jesus himself) to help the poor, and right the wrongs of the world.

But we do not find either gimmicks or efforts to stir the government into action in the life and teachings of the real Jesus… the one who alone can give eternal life. And the reason for this is because the real Jesus was not trying to promote the systems of the world, or trying to achieve success in the eyes of the world around him. He was only interested in promoting faith in an omnipotent, eternal God.

He had come from heaven, and he knew that he would be returning to heaven. Eternal life was not going to be found in the systems of man, but only in harmony and fellowship with God the Father, the Creator of all life.

Conclusion

Whether you are a conformer or a reformer, what Jesus wants you to consider is becoming a spiritual revolutionary instead… one who has dropped out of the rat race and caught sight of an eternal kingdom which exists in the hearts of all those who have such faith in God.

What would Jesus do? He would do like Abraham, and kill his own son if God told him to. He would cut off his hand before he would let it stop him from gaining eternal life. He would lay down his own life for God and for others. He would forsake everything that he owns to have eternal life. He would leave his family, his friends, his job, his home, and go into all the world preaching the good news of an eternal kingdom that only comes when we let go of all the other counterfeits.

Are you ready to become his follower, and to really do what he would do?

(See also Jesus the Revolutionary.)

In the United States today, any person, male or female, can easily obtain a ministerial license by sending off a hundred dollars in the mail to one, of many, license dispensing organizations. After getting a license, an aspiring organizer can advertise their own brand of religion in a large city newspaper, such as the “New York Times” and, within a week, have at least ten receptive believers in his, or her, congregation. I’m sure Jim Jones and the Peoples’ Temple conjure up horrible visions of murder, suicide, mayhem, and the vicious betrayal of public trust in the minds of the relatives of those unfortunate victims of the Jonestown massacre. Nonetheless, few objectively religious Americans presently realize how easy it is for sexually aberrant leaders within certain religious sects to gain the total confidence of their supplicant families, in order to, over time, ravenously satisfy their sexual appetites with the innocence of young trusting children.

There are, currently, certain popular religious organizations in the United States, which have been around for over a hundred years, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, that maintain huge male lay clergies and advertise, through the media and the printed word, their adherence to traditional family values. Many thousands of single men and women, as well as families, change their religious affiliations every year through contact with itinerant missionaries and representatives of these very wealthy sects. Many of these proselytiizing missionaries pay their own way to knock on the doors of potential converts. The Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower Society has a saying, they sometimes wish to deny, which goes, “publish or perish.” This means that convert Witnesses are intimidated into knocking on doors and publishing Jehovah’s Witness doctrine, disseminating that ubiquitous pamphlet, “Awake,” to everyone they see, by the threat levied by their leaders that they will spiritually perish if they don’t.

When a man is accepted, and ordained, into such a typical lay clergy, his background isn’t officially examined, to any extent, by those doing the ordaining. If the individual willing agrees to pay a tithe of his income and to adhere to the strict rules of the particular sect, his word is usually accepted as truth in an interview prior to the rites of admission. The leaders of these sects, high priests, priests, elders, and such, actually believe that they have the same power of discernment as the biblical Apostle Peter, to determine whether a person is lying or telling the truth. They believe that, by ordination, these powers can be conferred. This leads to one of the most heinous acts which may be committed by the leaders of a sect, that being covering up and protecting an accused sex offender when that person is an ordained priest or elder, in order to keep the accusation and the crime away from the media. This is what the Roman Catholic Church has done on numerous occasions.

Believing such doctrines is okay, as personal beliefs, per se. But when the physical welfare of young children is advertantly placed into jeopardy, into the hands of sexual predators who have successfully lied their way into the fellowship of local congregations for the express purpose of satisfying their sexual cravings, as a result of such practices, the discernment doctrine, and its accompanying rituals, have to become immediately suspect. The old scenario of a murderer, rapist, or convicted criminal seeking refuge in a monastery, in order to purge himself from a world of sin, is melodramatic but unrealistic when dealing with a pedophile. In a monastery the aberrant person is, at least, cutoff from the rest of the world, and can’t do harm to others behind monastic walls. But a pedophile, convicted or unconvicted, cannot be contained, and will commit his vile crimes again and again if allowed his/her freedom to associate with, or be around, children. Even after decades of psychiatric therapy, it is almost impossible for pedophiles to change their spots. This fact, alone, makes me wonder why a leader of a sect would have the temerity to pronounce a convicted sex offender free of sin, as innocently clean as a new-born lamb, and free to interact with the children of parents unaware of the man’s criminal history.

Since it is going to be long time before American law will force ecclesiastical leaders of sects to perform criminal history checks on those many men, and women, they induct into their ranks and, after a year-or-more, ordain to lay clergies, I encourage all congregational parents to beware of single, or married men, who take an abnormal interest in their male and female children. You can recognize potential pedophiles as those men, and women, who regularly carry candy in their pockets and hand it out to the children, before, after, and in-between Church services. Pedophiles are frequently older men who regularly offer to freely transport children around to their after-school or summer activities. Beware if there are older men in your congregations seeking to associate with children by offering to give free computer/video game lessons. Sometimes these men will salivate for months, and years, before worming their way into your lives for deviantly ulterior purposes. This is why I seriously believe that the universal penalty for sexual child molestation should be chemical castration.

Unfortunately, in a libertarian religious society, such as what you have in the United States, the main burden of protection for young children, from pedophiles, is levied upon the shoulders of concerned parents. When I was a California peace officer, during the 1980s, I was shocked at the number of children placed under the care of San Diego County Child Protective Services, during a months time, as a result of physical, mental, and sexual abuse, just at home. And it really hasn’t changed that much. In, both, large cities and small communities, there are adult child molesters who regularly harm children, physically and sexually, as a result of uncalculated rage or premeditated design. More American fathers are now being charged with child rape than ever before. Perhaps it is high-time for laws to be changed to protect innocent children, who may become the victims of sexual predators in unchecked religious societies.

If our “population crisis” is the result of rebellion against God, the answer to this problem would be much different than what the environmentalists are proposing.

Have you ever done the simple math? These calculations exclude the water, desert and icy areas of the earth. From a conservative estimate of land mass to population in the world, it works like this: We could support a population of over 314 billion with each person having one acre of land, to about 8 billion with each person having 40 acres of land. If the average size of a family is 4, then we would be able to give over 32 billion families a 40 acre farm. With today’s population of about 7 billion, every person could own a 45 acre farm, or a family of 4 could own an 180 acre farm. If push came to shove, we could develop the excluded areas and easily sustain over 700 billion people.

It has been proven over and over again that we have enough room on earth to sustain many more people than the present population. It is abundantly clear from the above facts, we have a people distribution problem rather than a universal population crisis. Some populations have grown faster than others and have overpopulated their areas. People are territorial. People need their space. When put too close together, they will guard their territory. They will feel uneasy and helpless, fearful and threatened, angry and violent. This breeds tyrannical governments, chaos in the workplace, fights on the school-grounds, genocide, nervous breakdowns, caste systems, and family breakdowns. Overpopulation has caused many of the problems: war, famine, tyranny, land grabs, and crimes we face on a regular basis. If left in this environment long enough, people will do all kinds of things to defend their territory. Some will withdraw and become hermits, or form gangs and defend their turf, or form armies and conquer someone else’s territory, or escape into a mythological world through mystic religions, or form social action groups or, deny there is a problem. As a result, all areas of society suffer. Do you get the picture?

We have a regional overpopulation problem. Population control or thinning out the population is not the answer. Exaggerating the effects of the problem is no answer either. Every person is an equal citizen with equal rights, with no person treated like trash. Each person should be allowed to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There needs to be room for personal growth and achievements, with everyone being allowed to pursue their dreams. Each person should be allowed to work for the good of all by looking out for the needs of others, without being forced into a uniform system where others rule or “lord it over” them.

To understand the solution to our present problem, we need to find out what caused it and to see if there is a sane solution for it. The problem has been caused by a lack of obedience to God’s command to “replenish the earth” as stated in Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1. Replenish means to fill up. Before the flood, our first family lived in a garden prepared by God. After the flood, the same command was given to Noah. Nimrod led the people in a rebellion against this command by influencing them to set up a localized government and to stay in one place. God separated the people by replacing their pure language with a multi-language system. This caused them to be divided into family groups. There is an interesting scripture in Isaiah 5:8 which reads “Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!” We need to do two things to solve this overcrowding problem. First, we need to get everyone right with God, and next, we need to allow them the freedom to relocate to less congested areas. This will take time and patience.

I turn 65 but am still working full time. Being a Vietnam combat vet I hear that I am entitled to VA benefits including health care. “Why not check it out?” my wife asks. “What did you say, dear?” I ask. “See if they have hearing aids,” she yells. Why does she always have to yell at me?

Anyway, I find all the forms on line and it says you have to mail them in, they cannot be sent in on line. So I print them out, fill them out and proudly enter them into the USPS system for handling. That was February.
Mid-June rolls around and my cell phone rings. It’s the VA. I’m informed that they wondered if I was ever called. I tell them, “No.” They tell me that usually a request this old they just throw away but they wanted to be sure that I had been called. I repeat that, no, I had not been called. I’m asked why I did not submit my DD 214 and financial information. “I did send in a copy of the DD 214 and the form said combat vets did not have to submit financial information.”

“That rule has been changed,” I’m informed.

OK, so I fax in the DD 214 and she takes some vague financial information from me over the phone. “Hang on and I will see if you will have a co-pay or not.”

A few minutes on hold with very nice symphony music (I almost fall asleep), I am informed that I, indeed, will have a co-pay (I earn too much money) but otherwise I’m in! Now I’m told I need to call into the VA help line and set up an “intake” appointment so that if I need medical help I will be fully set up to receive such help. The person also tells me to be sure to stop by and get my picture taken for my ID card.

I immediately call the help line. I mean, seconds after I hang up with the first person. I’m on hold for a few minutes – no symphony music this time. I let the person know that I need the initial “intake” appointment. “Last name and last four, please.” I respond with the info only to be told that the last four don’t match. I explain that I just minutes ago got off the phone with so and so and I must be in the system. She puts me on hold – still no symphony music. In a few minutes she comes back on to tell me that my social has been corrected, “Now, how can I help you?”

We set up an appointment a week out for a Saturday afternoon. I am close to having benefits, I am sure.
Early Saturday morning my wife’s cell phone rings. “It’s the VA honey.”

“Mr. Smith?”
“Yes.”
“Mr. James Smith?”
“The very one,” I explain jumping ahead of the ‘system’ but quickly spitting out my last four, and hoping that has been corrected.
“We have an earlier opening if you would like to come in early.”

That sounded good to me so I accepted and ran to the shower to get ready. While I’m in the shower my wife’s cell phone rings to inform me that I have an afternoon appointment and was I going to show up. She assures them that I will make my appointment.

I pull into the huge VA hospital complex and park in front of one of the first buildings I come to. Upon entering I am told that the intake area is all the way around the other side of the complex. It would be better to drive than walk. As I leave I admire all the pictures of the therapy dogs on the hallway wall. Don’t hospitals usually have photos of the staff and patrons of the facility?

Anyway, I pull around to the other side and park again. Now I am struck with a poignant scene. I see men of all ages, though mostly older, who have put their lives on the line for their country. Most are in disrepair and some in despair. I slow my walk to take in the scene and feel tears forming in my eyes. Some limbs are missing, a few are in wheel chairs, and many have ball caps on proclaiming their war and the unit they served in. I am ashamed to be so healthy and able to walk as I can. Is there any way for American, especially young America to see and appreciate this scene and the price of the freedom we enjoy? I again wish every person under the age of forty would be required to see the first twenty minutes of “Saving Private Ryan.”

Stunned, I continue on past these heroes. I find the right clinic and, to my surprise, I am taking in immediately. The “intake” goes well. A nurse takes the vitals and asks a lot of embarrassing questions including, “On a scale of one to ten, what is your pain level today? We will ask that question every time we see you here at the VA Hospital.” Before I answer, the scene I passed while entering the building flashes in my mind. I wonder what kind of answers those people give. My level is “one,” and I’m sure few of those I saw would give that answer.
I see a doctor who asks a few more embarrassing questions and tells me that to obtain the one med I am on I must see the pharmacist. The doctor also tells me that I need an initial appointment with a GP to complete my “intake” and be ready for any needed services. In the meantime, if I have a need, just show up at the emergency room. I do tell him, in a loud voice so he can hear me that I’d like to check on hearing aids. He said he would enter a request and I should hear from that department in a week or so. If I don’t hear from them in that timeframe, don’t hesitate to call them.

I’m sent back to the waiting room to wait to be called to set up an appointment with a GP. I’m entertained by CNN and a similar depressing scene of humanity waiting for VA services.

After twenty minutes I am called and set up a GP appointment three weeks out. I wait another twenty minutes before the pharmacist calls me and tells me I’ll have to wait until I see the GP to get the one med authorized.
I leave through the same scene that I entered. Only the faces are changed. I thank God for His care of me while in Vietnam. This time tears do roll down my cheeks.

About a week later I remember I need to get my picture taken for an ID card. Thinking that is a good idea, I head back to the ambulatory care area and encounter the same depressing scene again. “Head down that hall and take a number. They will call you,” I am informed.

I’m number sixteen. They are serving number four. The waiting area in this hallway is jammed so I read my newspaper standing up – for thirty five minutes.

“Sixteen!”
I’ve won the lottery!

Within ten minutes I am photographed by a state of the art system on which I can see my mug shot and all the info that will appear on my ID card. We stand, shake hands and he tells me I should have my ID card in two to three weeks. If not, give us a call and we will check on it. Now I wonder how in the world I could see such a sophisticated system, just like the DMV uses, but it takes two to three weeks for me to get an ID card. The DMV produces them immediately. I keep my mouth closed and exit the building.

About a week later, my wife’s cell phone rings and they tell her that I have an appointment with the audiology department – six weeks out. No, there is nothing sooner.

So, I have to wait 3 weeks to see a GP and six weeks to get into the audiology department. Both people tell me that if I need care before that just proceed to the emergency room. All of a sudden I feel like an illegal alien.
Before becoming a full-fledged member of the VA system I think I will try to get my correct phone number into the system. Symphony music accompanies my wait time and I get a pleasant person who does, indeed, change my contact phone number.

The day before my GP appointment my wife’s cell phone rings…

No, I don’t think I want government run health care. And I haven’t even begun to interface with Medicare!

The short answer is no: God intends for everyone in the world to submit to Christ under the New Covenant, which does not include the Law of Moses, though it shares with Moses fundamental moral values because both are based on the unchanging character of God Himself (compare Leviticus 19:1-2 with Matthew 5:48 and Luke 6:36). To go deeper than the surface, we have to look at what Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, and the author of Hebrews say about the old and new covenants.

Prophecy of the New Covenant

About 600 years before Christ, the prophet Jeremiah predicted the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). He said the new covenant would be different than the old (specified as the one God made with the houses of Israel and Judah when he brought them out of Egypt–definitely referring to the Mosaic Covenant). This time, the laws would be written on the people’s hearts, all of them will know the LORD, and He will completely forgive them. The New Testament book of Hebrews says this is the covenant Christ introduced (Hebrews 8:7-13 and 10:15-18, on which more is said below).

Original subjects of the Law of Moses

According to the Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament), the Law of Moses constituted the covenant God made with the Israelites. Its moral code, priesthood, festivals and other special days, and sacrificial system were all designed for the Hebrew nation. Essential to the covenant the Israelites made with God was their agreement to obey the stipulations of the Law of Moses and to become the objects of its blessings if they obeyed and its curses if they disobeyed. As originally delivered, no other nation was called upon or expected to keep the Law of Moses. According to Jewish tradition, the rest of the nations of the world were still under the covenant God made with Noah.

What change, if any, took place when the New Covenant came along? How did it affect the application of the Old? Did it take what make universal what once applied only to the Israelites? Or did it nullify the Old Covenant so that it no longer applied even for the nation of Israel?

Jesus’ teaching about the Law of Moses

According to Galatians 4:4, Jesus was “born under the Law,” which apparently means that He was bound to obey the Law’s commandments and ordinances. As an Israelite, He was just as obligated to keep the Law as every other Israelite. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17-18), He denies that His purpose is to “abolish” the Law and the Prophets. The Greek word translated “abolish” (kataluo) is “destroy” with an intensifying prepositional prefix, meaning “utterly destroy.” Rather, He says, His purpose is to fulfill the Law, and He says heaven and earth would sooner disappear than the Law, until everything is fulfilled. He says that the person breaking or teaching others to break the least of the commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, while those who practice and teach its commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

His mission in fulfilling the Law seems to have three parts. First, He calls on His disciples to keep the Law even more strictly than the Pharisees and teachers of the law, the most scrupulous religious observers of His time (Matt. 5:20). In the verses that follow (the rest of the Sermon on the Mount — Matthew 5:21-7:27), Jesus reveals what He means: giving to God the obedience of one’s heart, not just one’s actions. Fulfilling the Law then, in this first sense, means explaining it in its fullest meaning. Jesus taught the Law of Moses, but He also kept it perfectly. He fulfilled it, not only by giving its full meaning, but by obeying it fully Himself. In this way qualifying to become our perfect sin offering (see John 8:29, 46; Acts 10:38; Hebrews 3:2,6; 4:15; 1 Peter 1:19; 2:22; 1 John 2:2).

This leads us to the third part: when God accepts Christ as our substitute, His righteousness becomes ours (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21), which includes His perfect obedience of the Law. Because He stands in our place before the throne of God, we who have fully committed ourselves to Him–heart, mind, soul, and strength–are regarded as fully obedient under the Law (Romans 8:3-4; 13:10).

Yet even while upholding the Law, Jesus claims to have an authority above the Law, as when He proclaimed that the Son of Man (an indirect reference to Himself) is Lord of the Sabbath (see Mark 2:23-28; parallels in Matthews 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5). The examples He gives confirm that He sees His mission to seek and save the lost as claiming a higher priority than the keeping of the Sabbath. He points out the irony of those who used the Sabbath to plot His murder while accusing Him of breaking the Sabbath to heal a man (Mark 3:1-6; parallels in Matthew 12:9-14; Luke 6:6-11). On another occasion (Mark 7:1-23; parallel in Matthew 15:1-20), He notes that concern for inner purity should claim a higher priority than concern for ritual cleanness, and the gospel writer observes, “In saying this, he proclaimed all foods clean” (Mark 7:19).

At the Last Supper, Jesus tells his apostles that wine represents the blood He is about to shed. In Mark 14:24, He calls it “the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Matthew 26:28 adds “for the forgiveness of sins,” and Luke’s wording is “the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20; compare 1 Corinthians 11:25). This statement of Jesus is an obvious reference back to the moment when Moses said, “This is the blood of the covenant” (Exod. 24:8) during a ceremony confirming the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus says His own blood is what institutes and confirms the New Covenant.

Jesus also demonstrates an openness to Gentiles virtually unique among the Jews of His time. He praises the faith of a Gentile as being greater than any in all of Israel (Matthew 8:10; parallel in Luke 7:9). He likewise praises the strong faith of a Gentile woman (Mark 7:24-30; parallel in Matt. 15:21-28). He predicts the acceptance of Gentiles into God’s kingdom, even at the expense of the Jews (Matthew 8:11-12 and in parabolic form, Luke 14:23-24; 20:16; John 10:16). Although He previously limited His disciples’ proclamation to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:6), after His resurrection, He commands them to preach to all nations and to all creation (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47; Acts 1:8). Jesus tells His apostles to require of their converts faith, repentance, baptism, and continuing obedience, but makes no mention of circumcision as a condition of discipleship or salvation.

God led the apostles to a new understanding

In fulfilling Christ’s commission, the apostles first proclaim the gospel only to Jews and Gentile converts to Judaism (called “proselytes”). Only by a series of miracles does God convince Peter to share the Good News with a Roman centurion named Cornelius (read Acts 10:1-48). When Peter defends his actions to the other believers back in Jerusalem, they are convinced that “God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18).

After this, Christians start evangelizing the Gentiles (Acts 11:19-21), especially Saul of Tarsus (later called Paul) and his coworker Barnabas (Acts 13 – 14) on what is known as the First Missionary Journey. Their success among the pagans causes some Jewish Christians to demand that all of the Gentile converts be circumcised and required to keep the Law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas deny that this be required, and the debate becomes so heated that a conference is called of the apostles and Jerusalem elders (Acts 15:1-18). The conference confirms the teaching of Paul and Barnabas, requiring only that Gentile converts observe a few rules that will make their fellowship with Jewish believers less contentious (Acts 15:19-31).

Though many Jewish Christians continued to observe the Law even after this (see Acts 21:20), the Gentiles were not required to be circumcised (see Galatians 2:3-5), since Gentiles as well as Jews find acceptance before God by grace through faith, not by works of the Law (Acts 15:9, 11; Galatians 2:16). In other words, they could come to Christ directly, without first becoming converts to Judaism. The apostles recognized that both those whose flesh is circumcised and those whose flesh is not can have a circumcision of heart (Romans 2:25-29; 4:9-17; Colossians 2:11-13). This is what counts to God (Galatians 6:12-16); even the Law and Prophets recognized heart circumcision as more important (see Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25).

Accepting uncircumcised Gentiles into the fellowship of the redeemed, however, was a fundamental departure from the Mosaic Covenant, which required circumcision on pain of excommunication (continuing what had been instituted in the covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17:13-14 — see Exodus 12:48-49, Leviticus 12:3, and Joshua 5:2-8). During the period reflected in the second half of the Book of Acts, a transition of the covenants was taking place, in which practice was lagging behind teaching. The New Covenant had begun, but many were still clinging to the Old.

The change process likely paralleled what happens today with regard to the adoption of new technology. Some were early adopters who led the way in adopting the change, such as those who already were abandoning physical circumcision and Jewish customs (see Acts 21:21). Into this group we should probably put Stephen and later Paul, who were at the leading (“bleeding”?) edge. Others, such as Peter and John, were middle-of-the-road: they acknowledged the change but did not push it like Paul did. Still others were late adopters, like James the Elder (half-brother of Jesus), though it may be that James remained in this group only to help the others along (Acts 15:12-21 and 21:22-26; yet see Galatians 2:12).

Paul’s teaching about the Law of Moses

As one who perhaps saw the change more clearly than others, Paul sought to explain the transition in as forceful a way as the scruples of his Jewish fellow-Christians would allow. If he had not struggled with this concern, his teachings may have been more explicit. Nevertheless, he certainly was plain enough for us to understand a change in the covenants was underway. The following are some of the clearest passages, taken in chronological order.

In Galatians, perhaps the earliest of Paul’s letters (c. 50 CE), Paul says the law was our “pedagogue to lead us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24). In Greek culture, the pedagogue was a family slave assigned the task of getting the child to and from school each day. He was also expected to impart practical moral principles that would help the child mature. Paul says the Law had for us a similar function: preparing us for the coming of the Messiah. In the next verse, Paul adds, “Now that faith [i.e., the object of our faith] has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:25). In this metaphor, Paul pictures the relationship between the Law and the Christ as a cooperative one. The Law performs its function, accomplishes its goal, and then steps aside.

In the next chapter of Galatians, Paul turns up the heat. He compares the two covenants, the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, to the relationship between Hagar and Sarah (see Genesis chapter 16 and 21:8-21). He depicts a stormy relationship between the children of the two covenants: “The son born in the ordinary way [representing the unbelieving Jews] persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit [representing the Christians]. It is the same now.” Then Paul unleashes a thunderbolt: “But what does the Scripture say? ‘Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.’” Since the slave woman represents the Mosaic covenant, Paul is using the quoted verse, Genesis 21:10, to say, “Get rid of the Mosaic covenant and its adherents [the Jews who have rejected Jesus as Messiah], for the ['children' of the Mosaic covenant] will never share in the inheritance with the [Christians, the 'children' of the New Covenant].”

Paul wrote First Corinthians in about 55 CE. In chapter 9 he describes his willingness to be “all things to all men” for the sake of saving some of them. In particular, he says, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law” (verses 20 and 21).

In Second Corinthians, written around 55 CE, in chapter 3, Paul compares the old and new covenants by recalling the shining face of Moses (see Exodus 34:29-35). The Old Covenant he calls letters written on tablets of stone and “the letter” and the ministry of death and of condemnation. By contrast, he describes the New Covenant as written on tablets of human hearts and “the Spirit” and the ministry of righteousness” (verses 3, 6-9). Paul compares the Old Covenant to the radiance on the face of Moses, which was glorious at first and then faded away. In contrast, under the New Covenant, we experience an ever-increasing glory, which comes from our God (verses 9-18). At the time Paul wrote Second Corinthians, then, the Law, represented by the radiance, was fading away.

Paul wrote Romans around the year 57 CE. In chapter 7, verses 1-6, Paul pictures the Christian as a woman and the Law as her husband. The couple fails to have any children, and after the husband’s death, the widow marries a new husband, who symbolizes Christ. With her new husband, the woman has a baby, which apparently represents a righteous heart and life (the “fruit to God” of verse 4). Paul does not directly say that the Law has died, only that she is bound to her husband as long as he is alive and is released from her ties to him when he dies. He then speaks of her release but carefully avoids saying that the Law has died, only that she died to the Law.

This reflects the situation at the time Romans was written. Even though the New Covenant had already been in force for 25 years (ever since the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit on that first post-resurrection Day of Pentecost), people, even Christian Jews, were still clinging to the Law–offering sacrifices, paying tithes, keeping festivals, obeying the kosher laws, circumcising their sons. Yet the Law was dead. Not only was it dead, but it had failed to produce “fruit to God” in the body of the believer. To remain married to a corpse is a grotesque situation Paul does not linger to contemplate. He merely says, “We have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the written code” (Romans 7:6).

Paul wrote Ephesians in about the year 63 CE, some six years after Romans. In chapter 2, Paul just comes out and says that Christ united Jew and Gentile by destroying the “barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations” (2:14-15). As a result, Jews and Gentiles connected to Christ are “fellow citizens” and “co-members of God’s household,” built together as a new temple for God “in which God lives by His Spirit” (2:19-22). The verb translated “abolishing” (katergeo) means “to do away with, use up, render ineffective.”

In Colossians, written at about the same time as Ephesians, Paul says that Christ “canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us: he took it away, nailing it to the cross” (2:14). Christ’s death on the cross is what canceled (exaleipho–wiped out, removed, destroyed) and took away (airo–removed, set aside) the “written code, with its regulations.” We know this “written code” is referring to the Law because of the verses that follow, which refer to the observances required by the Law: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come: the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17). Because Christ’s death canceled the Law and took it away, these regulations no longer apply.

Hebrews on the Change of Covenants

No book of the Bible more clearly teaches that the Law of Moses is no longer binding on God’s followers today. In fact, that is the basic message of the Book of Hebrews, probably written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Its original readers were tempted because of persecution (see Hebrews 10:32-34) to forsake Christ and return to Judaism. The message of Hebrews is that Christ is better than Moses, better than the angels who mediated the Mosaic Covenant, better than Aaron the high priest under Moses, and offers a sacrifice infinitely better that those offered under Moses. Hebrews 8 calls up the prophecy of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), concluding in verse 13: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.”

This prediction of the disappearance of the covenant of Moses found fulfillment when the Jewish nation rebelled against Rome in the war of 67-73 CE. (You can read about this war in the detailed, eye-witness account. The Jewish War by Flavius Josephus.) The Jewish nation lost its temple and its priesthood in that war. Afterwards, it was impossible to keep the Law of Moses. The covenant curses for the nation’s disobedience, as recorded in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26, came true.

Conclusion about the Law of Moses

Some scholars argue that the Law of Moses continues to be valid as far as its moral code is concerned even though its temple, priesthood, and sacrificial system has ceased to exist. But there is no biblical basis for cutting up the Mosaic Covenant, throwing part of it away while trying to keep the rest of it on life support. In fact, James 2:10-11 argues for the integrity of the whole law and against attempts to keep only part of it (see also Galatians 5:3).

The New Covenant has reaffirmed the morality of the Law of Moses in almost every detail, including all of the Ten Commandments except the Sabbath and the general principles of loving God wholeheartedly and one’s fellow human as oneself. A few moral precepts found in the Law are not explicitly repeated in the New Covenant, such as the command against sacrificing one’s children (Leviticus 18:21) or having sex with an animal (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23; 20:15-16; Deuteronomy 27:21), but these are covered in the more general imperatives against idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality (e.g., 1 John 5:21; 3:12-15; 1 Corinthians 6:18-20).

Yet the New Covenant is not a law in the same sense in which the Mosaic Covenant was. Paul says, “we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code” (Romans 7:6). We have freedom in Christ to walk in His footsteps, to follow His example, to imitate His priorities, His perspectives, His heart. His love inspires us, His power humbles us, and His sacrifice makes us pure. We strive to be obedient to Him, not just to a rule-book. Our obedience is the measure of our loyalty and love to Him (John 14:15).