“What would Jesus do?” has become a mantra among contemporary Christians. It’s a great question, but only when answered by the Biblical standard. Far too often, each person is left to determine his own standard by which to answer this question. This amounts to forcing upon Jesus one’s own standard rather than seeking His.
Truth be known, most Christians don’t want to know what Jesus would do. This is because the vast majority of today’s churches are antinomian (opposed to Yahweh’s1 law under the New Covenant2), whereas Jesus was entirely pronomian. If He were living today, today’s antinomian churches would surely excommunicate him.
It was imperative that Jesus keep the law. Otherwise, He would have been a sinner and unable to be our sinless sacrifice. The Apostle John defines sin in the following fashion:
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)
In Matthew 5:17-19, we’re informed that Jesus did not “come to destroy [or change] the law … [but instead] to fulfill it.” Had He not observed and taught Yahweh’s moral law perfectly, He would not be our Savior today. Thus, Jesus responded to every situation He faced according to Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His triune law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Let’s consider four examples:
Cursing Father and Mother
What did Jesus teach regarding cursing one’s father or mother? If He was to remain sinless, it was incumbent upon Him to teach His Father’s law as provided in Exodus 21:17: “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death”:
[Jesus] answered and said unto them [the scribes and Pharisees], Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death…. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:3-9)
Praise Yahweh! We still have a Savior! Unlike so many today, Jesus didn’t advocate something different from His Father’s will as expressed in His moral law. If we’re going to do what Jesus would do in similar circumstances, we too need to be teaching the same today, particularly if we intend to reside in His kingdom:
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19-20)3
Adultery
Following is the judgment Yahweh requires for unrepentant adulterers:
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
Some Christians cite John 8:1-11, in which Jesus pardoned the adulterous woman, as alleged evidence this sin should no longer be considered a capital crime:
[T]he scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery…. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? …Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground … and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. …And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one…. When Jesus … saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:3-11)
Instead of requiring this woman to be stoned, Jesus merely admonished her to cease sinning. However, in doing so, He did not repeal Leviticus 20:10, which would have made Him a sinner. Instead, He upheld it, as demonstrated in His initial ruling that this woman was to be stoned by the witnesses to her crime.
Whatever Jesus wrote on the ground caused the woman’s accusers to exit the scene, in effect leaving no witnesses against her. Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 (which provide a statute Jesus referred to in John 8:17) require that capital punishment cannot be administered without the testimony of two or more witnesses—who are required to throw the first stones at the execution:
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 17:6-7)
Jesus required this prerequisite to stoning when he told the woman’s accusers, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Apparently these men were guilty of the same sin and therefore could not witness against the woman without exposing themselves to the same judgment. To have sentenced this woman to be stoned without witnesses would itself have been a violation of the law, making Jesus a sinner.
Furthermore, Leviticus 20:10 requires both the adulteress and the adulterer be produced for trial and sentencing. Since the Pharisees and scribes were witnesses to the crime, why didn’t they also produce the man (or men) involved with the woman? Perhaps they did. Perhaps they themselves were those men. This would also explain why they eliminated themselves as witnesses.
Jesus did not change the judgment for adulterers. He perfectly upheld Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 17:6, and 19:15, as required in order for Him to be our sinless Savior.4
See Part 2.
Related post:
Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant
Today’s Mount Carmel Christians
1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. It was unlawfully deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
2. The word nomos is the Greek word most often translated “law” in the New Testament. Thus, the term “antinomian” is descriptive of anyone opposed to the implementation of Yahweh’s triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments) under the New Covenant.
Unable to rebut this, being correct in its analysis. Well stated.
How do you find “Jesus” in the Hebrew Old Covenant, if the closest translation is “dog?” Prove all things remember? I’m just saying, how about “Yahshua,” or “Yahweh means salvation?” I’m just asking…
While not His given Hebrew name, Jesus IS the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which IS the Greek transliteration of given Hebrew name Yeshua. Neither Yahshua nor Yashua are legitimate English transliterations of His Hebrew given name.
What again is his Hebrew Name in that it(HEBREW) is the ONLY SPIRITUALLY INSPIRED LANGUAGE(ZEPH. 3:9, ACTS 26:14, 1 COR. 4:6)? Are you telling me that scripture doesn’t give it in Hebrew? I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS LEGIMATE, IN THAT “JESUS” APPEARS TO BE, WHOSE AUTHOR HIMSELF SAID IT WAS A PAGAN NAME! It DOESN’T MAKER ANY SENSE TO ME SIR!
Your Scripture references do NOT prove that Hebrew is the only spiritually inspired language, and Jesus is NOT a pagan name. Read again my response to you. For more on this subject, see http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/onlineBooks/third-commandment.html.
This discussion is not germane to the article. Consequently, if you choose to carry on this conversation any further, please email me directly concerning it.
JesusAnd
they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out
one by one – See more at:
http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/wwjd-are-you-sure-you-want-to-know-pt-1/#sthash.hSFU9luU.dpuf
And
they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out
one by one – See more at:
http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/wwjd-are-you-sure-you-want-to-know-pt-1/#sthash.hSFU9luU.dpuf
And
they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out
one by one – See more at:
http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/wwjd-are-you-sure-you-want-to-know-pt-1/#sthash.hSFU9luU.dpuf”
Jesus’s teaching regarding the adulterer was that only the sinless should inflict God’s guidance for punishment. Your analysis/implication that the punishments from the Old Testament should still be applied by those with sin, is not supported by your referenced passages. No one (I know of) is arguing that they are no longer God’s laws- The argument is whether men with sin should be meting out punishments described in God’s laws.
nhthinker, thank you for joining the discussion and sharing your thoughts.
By this interpretation, no one could ever punish any kind of crime, capital and non-capital alike. It also relegates civil judgments to unregenerate men who determine what and how to punish crime through their own finite and fickle deliberations rather than by Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9). A more exhaustive study of the Scriptures (including Matthew 15:3-9), demonstrates that this is not what was meant by Christ.
I would also recommend online Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt17.html for more on the proper use and implementation of Yahweh’s civil judgments under the New Covenant.
Thanks for the thoughts. Would you please provide your best reference to scripture that talks directly to Jesus recommending use of force for punishment? I am not aware of any, other than his chasing money-changers out of the temple. I am aware of several references where Jesus directly calls for leniency. Jesus called for only sinless witnesses to bear witness in order to invoke the punishment of the law. You seem to interpret it as a one time dispensation specifically for the adulteress. I interpret it as general guidance. Your interpretations seem to totally ignore the difference between eye-for-an-eye and turn-the-other-cheek as well as “the meek shall inherit the Earth” as providing guidance.
You need to carefully read this article again. Also Part. 2 of the same.
I do not ignore the passages you refer to. What I refuse to do is pit them against other just as equally valid passages, as you seem to be doing, which, in turn, makes Christ a sinner and, therefore, unable to be our Savior. Instead, “the sum of God’s word is truth” (Psalm 119:160, NASB) and must therefore be harmonized to the best of our ability.
I think the question is better framed as ‘What did Jesus do?’ rather than ‘What would Jesus do?’. That way we stick within the confines of the Bible, and not create our own image of Jesus.
Very good! I like that!
you lost me at the FIRST “whosoever”…quoting from the King James is like using the Queens English to teach in a 21st century, American classroom…first, the kids would laugh at you, then they’d complain to their parents that they didn’t learn a goddamn thing! jesus wasn’t british, either, btw, despite how he was portrayed in countless hollywood movies…so pretending that you now KNOW the mind of a boundless, infinite god because you can quote the KJV is quite simply stated–LUDICROUS!
While I certainly don’t consider the KJV even remotely a perfect translation (let alone new revelation as the Ruckmanites do), it does have its advantages. The English language lost something major when it was decided that we no longer needed to have Second Person personal pronouns distinguished by number and case as we do for the First and Third Persons personal pronouns, and as most other languages for the Second as well.
An example of how this distinction can be vitally important is Jesus’s famous conversation with Nicodemus on how to be saved. Certainly the requirements for salvation itself would qualify as “vitally important,” no?
Modern translations that do not use the Elizabethan-era pronouns has Jesus telling Nicodemus, “Truly I tell you, you must be born again.” What, did Jesus mean that only Nicodemus needed to be born again, or that everyone does?
The KJV removes this ambiguity, and makes His meaning very clear: “Verily I say unto thee [objective case singular], ye [subjective case plural!] must be born again.”
He was saying this to Nicodemus (“… unto thee,”), but about everyone (“ye must….”)!
Even less-educated and more “vulgar” English dialects recognized the importance of at least the missing number distinction, if not case, for the Second Person personal pronouns. Brooklynites coined “you’se” and “you’ses” and even “you’se guys” to provide the plural (though “you” itself was originally the objective case plural — its the singular that’s actually missing now), while Southerners coined “y’all.”
Chris, you’re welcome to join us here in a (civil) discussion. However, this will be your first and final warning regarding profane and blasphemous language.
That you are “lost” (I can only wonder if there’s not more to that than meets the eye) with the KJV only goes to reveal a lack of desire for Yahweh’s will in this matter. Generations of people have overcome the KJV’s archaic language and so will many more.
This is not to say that I believe the KJV translation is inspired. It is not. However, I use it (not exclusively) for those who believe it is.