Are there occasions when God wants us to break His law? Yes, says David Instone-Brewer. Here, he explains why
Can you lie to protect yourself or others from danger? Is breaking the speed limit justified if you need to get to the hospital in an emergency? Is it right to trespass in order to rescue a pet? What would Jesus do?
Jesus legislated love: to love God and love others (Matthew 22:37-39). But He didn’t say that the rest of God’s law was redundant. In fact, He not only affirmed the Old Testament laws – He emphasised that we should obey them: “anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). He also urged His listeners to ensure: “your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law” (v20). So, in what way, then, did Jesus single out “love” as all-important?
Some claim it’s because “love” replaces or summarises the Old Testament laws; but that raises problems. How can the law of love, by itself, determine fair compensation for theft or injury, as Israel’s law does (Exodus 21:18-19; 22:1,4)? Jesus didn’t throw away God’s laws. They set Israel apart as a fair and compassionate society in the ancient Middle East. Unlike surrounding nations that prioritised protecting property, Israel’s laws consistently valued people above possessions – as we’d expect from God, their author.
Of course, many Old Testament laws are now redundant. Take the first command: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Job done – perhaps too well! As Christians, we don’t need to observe all the laws on sacrifice and ritual cleanliness; Jesus’ death has made these unnecessary by cleansing us from all sin.
However, that still leaves a large number of commandments that are foundational to our society today. For example, our laws distinguish between deliberate ‘murder’, ‘accidental death’ and unintentional ‘manslaughter’, based on Old Testament teaching (Numbers 35:16-25; Exodus 21:28-29).
To save a life
The likely solution is that Jesus’ listeners would have regarded the principle of ‘love’ in the same way as the Jewish principle of ‘life’. This principle – called ‘guarding life’ (pikuach nefesh) – said that when a person was in danger, any commandment should be overruled in order to preserve life. If bandits asked where your friends were hiding, you could lie. You could put out a housefire on the Sabbath if someone was trapped inside – though not otherwise! And even the most sacred fast could be broken to allow a mortally ill person to eat – because safeguarding life took precedence over the commandments.
However, there were three commandments that even ‘life’ could not overrule. If someone was ordered to worship another god, commit sexual immorality or commit murder, they were expected to choose death rather than disobey God’s commands.
When a person was in danger, any commandment could be overruled to preserve life
We see hints of this principle in Matthew’s account of the ‘hungry’ disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath. Jesus compared them to David, who ate the priest’s bread and Matthew added that David too was ‘hungry’, though the Old Testament does not mention this (Matthew 12:1,3). This type of hunger (peinaō) could be serious – the same word describes Jesus after His 40-day fast (Matthew 4:2). Jews recognised that someone who was starving could be permitted even to steal food – though they had to pay for it once their life was saved (Proverbs 6:30-31).
To make His point, Jesus asked whether it would be wrong to pull a sheep out of a water cistern on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:11). The sectarians who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls wouldn’t even rescue a human from a cistern on a Sabbath – though they did grudgingly allow a cloak to be lowered to help them up, because unlike a ladder or a rope, it wasn’t a ‘tool’ so it wasn’t considered ‘work’. The rabbis disagreed with them, because ‘life’ overruled the commandment of Sabbath rest.
To live in love
My theory – and it’s only a theory – is that Jesus replaced ‘life’ in this principle with ‘love’, teaching that love can overrule any commandment. This explains how Jesus could uphold the two greatest love commands without diminishing the others. He wasn’t dismissing His Father’s law; He regarded it as wondrous, just as Psalm 119 proclaims. But He emphasised that its application must never break the overruling law of love.
When we grit our teeth and tell someone: “Well, the law says…”, perhaps it’s a sign that we should pause and rethink. If our parents insist we distance ourselves from a friend who needs our time and support, should we obey them? If an asylum seeker in church gets a job to send money to a sick relative, should we follow the law despite the consequences? Sometimes, the strict application of a law has unintended consequences that feel plainly wrong and, at those times, we should consider whether the law of love guides us to a better solution.
If people are left hurting and broken by the application of a law that God has given, we must remember that God’s purpose was to give a law of justice and peace. When that is not the result, we are clearly not allowing love to overrule, and God’s purpose is not being fulfilled.
The laws given to Israel are a wonderful, God-given foundation. But in some circumstances, where they conflict with the law of love, love must take precedence. James agreed, calling the law of love the “royal law” (James 2:8). And Paul said we should obey the “Spirit” not the letter of the law (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6). Actually, I rather like the modern way of deciding if love should overrule – when you aren’t sure, ask: “What would Jesus do?”
No comments yet