Armstrongism in Contention with Christianity: Concerning Jesus' Fulfilling of the Law of Moses

The Apostle Paul 

A Reasonable Likeness from the Fayum Mummy Portraits (Fair Use)

See note at end.

 

Armstrongism in Contention with Christianity

Concerning Jesus Fulfilling of the Law of Moses

 

By Scout

 

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; 

I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. (Matt. 5:17, NRSV)

 

When I think of Armstrongism the word that often comes to mind is “contrarian”.  I formed an impression years ago that HWA felt a kind of boost to his self-esteem by adopting the dissenting viewpoint – as if he were saying, “I seem like I came from the backwoods of theology but I am so right and you all are so wrong.”  And I believe this is a life-theme of many of his followers as well.  It is common to be a contrarian in politics but, alas, religion is not politics although there are some surface similarities.  One can be totally wrong in politics and it will have only secular, durational consequences.  Not so with religion.  Here is a midrash on a topic where Armstrongism takes the heterodox road.  This is an ancient doctrine that Christians sorted out long ago.  But it has been newly challenged by Armstrongism. (When I write Law with a capital that refers to the Law of Moses; law without the capital refers to the philosophical concept of law.)

The Initial Point of Reference

I will put my cards on the table.  The next paragraph is what I think Armstrongism says about Jesus fulfilling the Law of Moses.  I may be wrong.  Let me know.  I haven’t been an Armstrongist for a long time. 

Armstrongism maintains that Jesus came to fulfill the Law of Moses by making it stricter by requiring obedience not only to the letter of the Law but also the spirit of the Law.  And in this way Jesus magnified the law and made it honorable (Isaiah 42:21).  The Israelites had been unable to successfully keep the Law.  But God fixed this by granting the Holy Spirit that makes it possible for converted humans to keep the Law of Moses even in its new more demanding form.  And the Law of Moses is written on the hearts of everyone who is a converted follower of Jesus.  The exegesis for this is found in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus, for instance, tightened up the commandment concerning adultery by taking the requirement beyond the letter to include also lusting after a women.  Therefore, all Armstrongists are responsible for keeping all of the Law of Moses in the letter and spirit. Rod Meredith declared that this included not just the Decalogue but all of the statutes and judgements because the statutes and judgements are derived from the Decalogue.  Herman Hoeh stated that the statutes and judgements pre-dated the Old Covenant and could not be abolished when the Old Covenant was terminated.  But even though the statues and judgements are considered binding, to my knowledge Armstrongism has never defined a comprehensive catalog of spiritual intents for this body of legislation. The statutes and judgements seem to continue only in the letter.  Further, Armstrongists believe that they must follow the example of Jesus and Jesus kept the Law of Moses.  Excluded are the sacrifices and what Armstrongists refer to as the Ministry of Death.   The wild card is that Armstrongist leaders believe they can loosen and bind Biblical mandate including the Law of Moses although the doctrine is not well defined. 

Jesus Kept the Law of Moses Perfectly for a Reason

Jesus kept the Law of Moses perfectly but is that the example that we are intended to follow? Jesus was born under the Law of Moses. He was an Israelite living in the polity of Israel. And Israel was party to a covenant with God.  That covenant required the observance of the Law that had been conveyed through Moses.  So, Jesus was obligated to keep the Law of Moses by circumstances of human birth.   This is so even though he was Yahweh and had created the Law of Moses. 

Beyond this Old Covenant context in which Jesus lived, there is a profound, new, spiritual meaning. The perfect Law keeping of Jesus is important to all of us because it is part of the way that God implemented salvation for us.  We are blessed with the Vicarious Humanity of Christ.  Jesus met conditions for us, in our stead, securing salvation for us.   One of the conditions he met for us was the keeping of the Law of Moses. In 2 Corinthians 5:21 (NRSV) it states:

“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

We cannot be made righteous in him unless he were perfectly righteous.  God expects perfect righteousness and that is what we cannot deliver.  The righteousness of Jesus is our righteousness by ascription.  And this ascription is not contingent on works.  While there is debate among different denominations how precisely the ascription happens, there is no debate about the fact that the righteousness originates with Jesus and is credited to us.  In the simplest terms, “by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous (KJV, Romans 5:19).   In Romans 4: 6 (NRSV), Paul states:

“So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:”

In the larger context of Romans 4 we understand that this righteousness comes to us through our justification by God through the faith of Jesus that resides in us through the Holy Spirit.  There seems to be no exegesis that supports the idea that Jesus’ conforming perfectly to the Law of Moses created a requirement that Christians must follow the Law of Moses and in an even more exacting way.  Such an assertion would contradict the Biblical statements concerning justification by imputation.  

Nor is there any implication that since Jesus kept the Law of Moses that we then should follow his example, in his footsteps, and also keep the Law of Moses.  What we have seen this far is that Jesus kept the Law of Moses vicariously in our stead.  1 Peter 2:21 says that we should follow in the steps of Jesus in regard to suffering.  It does not mention observing the Law of Moses.  This aligns with James 5:10. Our relationship with Jesus keeping the Law of Moses is not one of imitation but imputation.    

The disposition of the Law of Moses after the Crucifixion is explained in Pauline theology.  It has been replaced by the Law of Christ.  Jesus as Yahweh can promulgate a new modified Law and did so.  The disposition of the Law of Moses is seen in this scripture from Romans 7:6 (NRSV):

“But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are enslaved in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the written code.”

The message is clear.  We are discharged from the Law – dead to it.  Its past impact on our lives is characterized as captivity and enslavement.  It is not the foundation on which the future will be built. Paul’s metaphor could not be clearer.  I remember hearing a sermon in the WCG in which the minister stated that “dead to the law” really means “dead to the penalty of the law” and that we do not experience the penalty of the Law any longer because we keep the Law and the penalty is not exacted – apparently we had to be keeping it perfectly for this model to work.   But there was no basis for inserting “the penalty of” into Paul’s language.  This was an artful dodge to justify the heterodoxy of continuing to observe of the Law of Moses after it was no longer in force. 

The Messiah will Magnify the Law and Make if Honorable

Jesus fulfilled the Law by transcending the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses with a new covenant and new law leading to a new purpose and by his personal example as the living Word of God.  It is a fulfilling of (not the abrogation of) the Law of Moses because it retains the moral imperative of the Law of Moses while rescinding or modifying the letter (think of circumcision). This fulfilling is not simply the idea that Jesus kept the Law of Moses perfectly as an example for us to imitate.   The reason for that is addressed in the previous section of this essay.  But the Greek word for fulfill is plēroō.   This word means to make abundant or to complete or to make something abound.  

The New Testament explains to us the way in which Jesus accomplished this flourishing.  Jesus achieved the fulness of the purpose of the Law by vacating the letter of the Law of Moses (Romans 7: 1-6), establishing in the place of the Law of Moses a new law, called the Law of Christ in scripture (Galatians 6:2; Romans 8:2; 1 Corinthians 9:21), and in his words and deed, as the living Word of God, setting a new example under this new covenant that we should follow (1 John 2:6) with the ultimate goal of accomplishing better purposes than the Law of Moses could provide (Hebrews 8:6).  This is what the Bible documents – an abounding of purpose intended and of purpose achieved. 

One might think that Jesus fulfilled the Law like someone fulfills the condition of a contract.  When the fulfilling action is complete, then the condition is satisfied and has no further bearing.  But in this contract model, not only the letter of the Law would be terminated but its moral intent also.  We know the moral intent reflects God’s nature and will not go away.   Jesus kept the Law perfectly not because he was simply discharging a contractual obligation but because his righteousness would be ascribed to believers, justifying them, as an essential element in the plan of salvation. 

Jesus fulfilled the Law by showing us a new, better way to the outcomes that the Law intended but Israel was never able to achieve.  And he showed us a better way by his words and actions as the living, embodied Word of God.  Jesus had the authority to change the Law.  Several times is the Sermon on the Mount he says, “You have heard that it was said, … But I say to you…”  Jesus was not inferior to Moses (Hebrews 3:3).  It was Jesus as Yahweh that gave the Law to Israel through Moses.  This establishment of a new way by Jesus was done not by preserving the letter of the Law and making it more rigorous but by superseding it with a better way of life – known to Christians as The Way.  

Jesus magnified the Law and made it Honorable by showing that it was not just a grounds for measuring performance but a grounds principally for love.  Jesus said:

“He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (NRSV, Matthew 22:37-40)

This is the purpose of the Law and the Prophets, these two commandments about love. This is not a new statement.  Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18 together say the same thing.  But the Judaic tradition at the time of Christ was not following this.  The scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman taken in adultery to see if he would participate in her stoning.  And Yahweh who gave the Law and knew how he wanted it applied said let him who has not sinned cast the first stone.  This is radically different way of applying the Law – a way based on love and grace.  Jesus did not magnify the Law by making it harsher and more punitive.  He did it by bringing it to its original purpose – love of God and love of neighbor.

Conclusion

Jesus fulfilled the law, magnified it and made it honorable, principally by making love its focus, by giving us the New Testament, the Law of Christ and Vicarious Humanity of Jesus.  Dissenters from this view would assert that Jesus made the Law greater by making it more rigorous.  And keeping the Law of Moses is a requirement for salvation.  As for the Armstrongist idea that the giving of the Holy Spirit made it possible for people to keep the new demanding Law, this did not seem to work for the Apostle Paul (Romans 7:21-25). Nor did it ever result in Armstrongists keeping the full Law of Moses – they keep only select parts of the Law of Moses.   We should follow the example of Jesus not in the observation of the letter of the Law of Moses but in following the Law of Christ (The Sermon on the Mount and New Testament principles broadly).  And the Law of Christ carries forward whatever is essential in the Law of Moses.

Note:  For the image of Paul at the top of the article, I chose a portrait from the gallery of Fayum Mummy Portraits.  I believe Paul looked much more like this portrait than the common depictions of him as a Western European. While we cannot know Paul’s facial features, we can at least get the physical anthropology right.  The Fayum people were Egyptian or a mixture of Greek and Egyptian. Their genetic profiles are mostly Egyptian.  The portraits date from around the time of Jesus. Some may be early Christians.   We know from Acts 21:38 that a Roman Tribune mistook Paul for an Egyptian.  Later in the same account, Paul addressed a group of Jews at the Temple, and they were not comfortable with him by appearance.  He had to identify himself as a Jew and speak to them in Hebrew before they would settle down and listen.  Clearly, Paul was dark-skinned, perhaps darker than some of the Jews he was addressing. My guess is that he looked “Gentile” to these Jews. Followers of British Israelism will see in this an issue.  Paul is of the tribe of Benjamin and should have looked like a Norwegian.  The Norwegians are thought by Armstrongists to be the modern-day descendants of Benjamin.  This is a Biblical refutation of this point in the Armstrongist version of British Israelism.