One of the most important tasks we face in our study of the Sabbath is to determine if the Sabbath is a moral requirement that all are to observe or just a Jewish institution that pointed forward in some way to the gospel of Christ. Before we get to the four chapters dedicated to Jesus and the Sabbath we want to discover how Jesus related to the other laws of the Old Testament. In this chapter we want to discover how Jesus dealt with the ritual or ceremonial laws of the old covenant. In the next chapter we will examine how Jesus treated the moral laws of the old covenant. In so doing we will find a pattern in His treatment of these laws and this pattern, in turn, will give us insight into the many Sabbath incidents in the life of Jesus that will help us reach definitive answers in our Sabbath study.
As the gospel record advances from the beginning of Christ’s ministry to the end we will see a development in the way Jesus dealt with ritual or ceremonial law. At first there are inferences that he was not too concerned with ritual law, then, we will find additional evidence supporting this conclusion; and finally clear, scriptural proof. We start with the Gospel of Mark.
And a leper came to Jesus, beseeching Him and falling on his knees before Him, and saying, “If You are willing, You can make me clean.” Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. And He sternly warned him and immediately sent him away, and He said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them” (Mk. 1:40–44).
If Jesus could heal by a word of command1 why did He choose to heal this unclean leper with a touch? Why did Jesus sternly warn this man to say nothing to anyone about this healing? The answer was obvious to the original readers of Mark’s gospel who knew the law and its interpretation. By touching this leper, Jesus showed his tender care for this outcast of society. At the same time, however, that touch also made Jesus ritually unclean. While there is no specific biblical law stating that someone touching a leper becomes ritually unclean, it is nevertheless, clearly inferred in the passage below.
As for the leper who has the infection, his clothes shall be torn, and the hair of his head shall be uncovered, and he shall cover his mustache and cry, “Unclean! Unclean!” He shall remain unclean all the days during which he has the infection; he is unclean. He shall live alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp (Lev. 13:45,46).
This explains Mark 1:45.
But he went out and began to proclaim it freely and to spread the news around, to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city, but stayed out in unpopulated areas; and they were coming to Him from everywhere.
Could it be that the reason Jesus was forced to stay out in unpopulated areas was that He was considered ritually unclean because of His contact with the leper?
One could correctly argue that Jesus, in His purity and sinlessness, could not become unclean. Yet we are not dealing with intrinsic moral laws here, rather, ritual law. In any event it appears that Jesus was at least near a violation of ritual custom if not the law.
For the next example of Christ’s relationship to ritual law let us examine the episode of the healing of Jairus’ daughter in Mark 5:21–43. Jesus is approached by a synagogue official who implored Christ to come and heal his daughter who was “at the point of death.” As Jesus and the crowd that followed Him were on their way, a ritually unclean woman touched His garment. This was against custom and was understood to make Jesus ritually unclean.2 At this point some people from the synagogue official’s home arrived and announced that the girl was dead to which Jesus responded, “Do not be afraid any longer, only believe.”
When they arrived at the home of Jairus, Jesus said, “Why make a commotion and weep? The child has not died, but is asleep.” and they began laughing at him. Then Jesus taking only his three closest disciples and the child’s mother and father went into the room where the girl was.
Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, “Talitha kum!” (which translated means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). Immediately the girl got up and began to walk, for she was twelve years old. And immediately they were completely astounded. And He gave them strict orders that no one should know about this…(Mk. 5:41–43).
Again, we note that Jesus took the girl by the hand and the Gospel writer under the guidance of the Holy Spirit chose to record this fact. We know from the experience of Lazarus that Jesus could raise the dead—even those who had been dead for four days—with a spoken command. We see nearly the same instruction given to the parents of this “little girl” as given to the leper in the previous incident we considered, “And He gave them strict orders that no one should know about this.” In this incident, we now have moved from an inference that Jesus broke ritual law, to a more clear indication of that fact. Note the following:
The one who touches the corpse of any person shall be unclean for seven days. That one shall purify himself from uncleanness with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and then he will be clean; but if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean. Anyone who touches a corpse, the body of a man who has died, and does not purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from Israel. Because the water for impurity was not sprinkled on him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him. (Num. 19:11–13).
According to this biblical law Jesus made himself unclean by touching the dead girl. Further, according to this law, “He defiled the tabernacle of the LORD” and should have been “cut off from Israel.”
What so links these two episodes that they are intertwined? That in both the recipient of the miracle was a female seems in itself insignifi- cant. More importantly, in both Jesus becomes ritually unclean: in one when the woman touches him; in the other when he touches the girl. But the fact of Jesus’ uncleanliness is not mentioned, and there I believe lies the point of intertwining the episodes. Mark is making a strong statement about Jesus’ indifference. To Jesus, the uncleanliness has no importance. Jesus is paying no attention to the scriptural provisions.3
Some will argue that the girl was not really dead because Jesus said, “She is not dead, but sleeping.” However, this is the same term Jesus used when he described Lazarus who clearly was dead.4 In Luke’s account we read, “he took her by the hand and called, saying, ‘Child arise!’ and her spirit returned…” indicating the girl had come back to life.
In Mark 7:14–23 Jesus moves from doing things that were contrary to ritual law to teaching things contradictory to biblical ritual law.
After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. [“If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”] When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. “All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man” (Mk. 7:14–23).
The statement, “Thus he declared all foods clean” is in the best manuscripts and therefore, should not be treated as some late scribal insertion but the insertion of the writer, Mark.5 This teaching stands in direct contradiction to the food laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 but in harmony with new covenant understanding.6
The next incident in the life of Jesus we will examine relates to the half-shekel tax required of everyone in the old covenant.
The LORD also spoke to Moses, saying, “When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them. “This is what everyone who is numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as a contribution to the LORD. “Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the LORD. The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the LORD to make atonement for yourselves.” (Ex. 30:11–15).
This law is a law given directly by the Lord to Moses. It is not some rabbinical interpretation, but a requirement of the old covenant law. It applies to everyone who is numbered in Israel. It is very insightful to see how Jesus related to this old covenant law.
The motive behind the questioners is unclear. However, the very fact that they asked if Jesus paid this tax indicates that they had reason to question Jesus’ careful adherence to old covenant law. Perhaps they had seen or heard of other instances where Jesus took exception to the law, at least as they understood it.
When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?” He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?” When Peter said, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are exempt. “However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me” (Mt. 17:24–27).
Here Jesus declares that He and His disciples are actually exempt from this tax because they are “sons”. That this is the same half-shekel tax referred to in Exodus 30 seems certain.7 Clearly, Jesus did not consider paying this ritual tax8 to be necessary. The only reason He told His disciples to pay the tax was so that they would not “offend them”. In other words, Jesus paid little attention to the intrinsic value of obedience to this old covenant requirement.
While there are many more examples we could cite,9 we can now make two general conclusions.
First, Jesus always let the moral and ethical considerations of a given situation dictate his actions10 whether or not his actions were in violation of rabbinical or even biblical ritual law.
Second, at times it seems that Jesus purposely went out of His way to violate ritual law. He would often heal by a word of command when a touch would have been appropriate. Yet when a touch would make Him ritually unclean, He often chose to heal in that manner.
Why did Jesus violate biblical ritual laws?
Jesus was without sin
Some of the ritual laws dealt with cleansing from sin and Scripture is clear that Jesus was without sin.11 This would excuse Jesus from having to offer the various sin offerings.
Ritual laws were Jewish, Jesus was universal
A number of ritual laws dealt with “clean and unclean”. Some of these laws may have had something to do with health and hygiene but were given religious significance. We have shown that one could break the covenant in numerous ways, including violating ritual law.12 As we saw in our study of the old covenant, this covenant was made between God and Israel only. It was the adherence to ritual practices that gave the Jews a unique national identity. The new covenant gospel of Christ, by contrast, was to go to all nations, peoples and tongues. Christ must do two difficult things: First, He must fulfill the many prophecies of the old covenant that pointed forward to Him. Second, He had to give instruction that would be applicable to all people. Therefore, we see him purposely—but not sinfully—moving away from “Israel only” laws to universal principles in His teachings and practice. To bring about this change He purposely put little value on the old covenant ritual laws.
Old covenant ritual law pointed forward to Christ
Many, if not most, of the ritual laws of the old covenant in some way pointed forward to Christ. The New Testament is replete with testimony that the life, death and resurrection of Christ and the forgiveness thereby offered are all foreshadowed in the old covenant. Now that Christ had come, these laws lost much of their useful function. When a person reaches his destination he folds up the map and puts it away. The map served a good and useful purpose, but now its function is limited to a review of the road traveled.
As one reads through the Gospels and carefully examines the controversies Jesus had with the Pharisees who were strict adherents to the law, it becomes evident that the very laws that the Pharisees were so meticulously keeping became the very things that kept them from accepting Christ as the Messiah. What follows is a vitally important point to understand with reference to old covenant ritual law: Once Christ had come, the observance of old covenant ritual laws which had performed an important function by pointing Israel forward to Christ, now actually became a hindrance to His acceptance. The very people who were most intent on carefully following old covenant law were the same people who rejected Him.
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John (Mt. 11:12,13).
This verse13 indicates that there was a change in the function of the law and the prophets with the coming of John the Baptist. Greek scholar, R.C.H. Lenski, gives the meaning of this verse to be the kingdom “‘is brought forward powerfully’ by John and by Jesus.”14 The Message paraphrase is:
For a long time now people have tried to force themselves into God’s kingdom. But if you read the books of the Prophets and God’s Law closely, you will see them culminate in John…15
We will see that behind nearly every controversy between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, Jesus is trying desperately to move the people away from the old covenant laws to Himself. In so doing, Jesus was not violating the intent of old covenant law even when He was violating the letter of the biblical ritual laws. This is true because the main function of old covenant law, prophecy and history was to point to Christ.16
Summary
- Jesus always let the moral and ethical considerations of a given situation dictate his actions whether or not they were in violation of old covenant ritual law.
- At times Jesus went out of His way to heal in such a manner that his actions would be considered a violation of old covenant ritual law.
- At times Jesus’ teaching was diametrically contrary to old covenant ritual law.
- Jesus gave little weight to old covenant ritual law for several reasons:
- Many of these laws dealt with sin and He was sinless.
- Old covenant ritual laws were for Israel only, Jesus’teachings were universal.
- Old covenant ritual laws were designed to point forwardto the Messiah. Now that the Messiah had come these laws were of little value and actually were a hindrance to many who could not move from the legalism of law into the kingdom of Grace. Many were unable to leave the familiar symbolic shadow and walk in the reality of the light of the Savior’s presence. The dry and brittle old covenant wine skin could not hold the fresh squeezings of the life-giving, new covenant gospel wine.
Endnotes
- See Mark 1:25.
- See Lev. 15:19–25.
- Alan Watson, Jesus and the Law, (University of Georgia Press, Athens GA, 1996), p. 54.
- Jn. 11:11.
- Even if this were a scribal addition, it shows how the teaching of Jesus was understood by the early church.
- See Acts 10, 11; Rom. 14:14.
- See R.C.H. Lenski, Commentary on the New Testament, Matthew, (Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), pp. 672, 673; Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, The Gospel of Matthew, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1973), pp. 677–680. Carson, Gospel of Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1984), Vol. 8, pp. 393–395.
- I see this as a ritual law as it related to “making atonement” (Ex. 30:15).
- See Alan Watson, Jesus and the Law, for many more examples.
- I recognize that Jesus never did anything without the Father’s approval. See Jn. 8:28.
- Heb. 4:15; 2 Cor. 5:21.
- See pages 56–58.
- See also Lk. 16:16.
- Lenski, Matthew, p. 437
- Eugene H. Peterson, The Message, (Navpress, Colorado Springs, CO., 1994), p. 30.
- The book of Hebrews is replete with illustrations. See the many “fulfills” in Matthew; see Jn. 5:39 and the many “untils” in John and Galatians 3.
- 7. Jesus and Ritual Law - April 24, 2025
- 6. The New Covenant - April 17, 2025
- The Christ Event and the Spirit of Prophecy - April 10, 2025