I’m brainstorming and activating prior knowledge in preparation for listening to a conference presentation on Jesus and the law. Jesus is the law incarnate, guided by the spirit of the law rather than just manipulating it like a lawyer ignoring God’s intentions.

Jesus rebukes Satan during the temptation in the wilderness when Satan quotes Scripture, specifically in Matthew 4:5–7. Satan quotes Psalm 91:11–12 to tempt Jesus to throw himself off the temple, suggesting that angels would protect him. Jesus responds by rebuking Satan with another Scripture, Deuteronomy 6:16, saying, “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.”Here’s the passage (Matthew 4:5–7, NIV):

“Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. ‘If you are the Son of God,’ he said, ‘throw yourself down. For it is written: “He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.”’ Jesus answered him, ‘It is also written: “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.”’”

Jesus directly counters Satan’s misuse of Scripture with a correct application, effectively rebuking him by exposing the temptation as a distortion of God’s Word.

Jesus often intensified the moral and ethical demands of the Old Testament Law in his teachings, emphasizing the heart’s intent over mere external compliance. Here are key examples from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) where he makes the law stricter by focusing on internal attitudes and motivations:

1. Adultery and Lust (Matthew 5:27–28)
   • Old Testament Law: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). This prohibited the physical act of adultery.
   • Jesus’ Teaching: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
   • How It’s Stricter: Jesus equates lustful thoughts with the act of adultery itself, emphasizing that sin begins in the heart, not just in physical actions.
2. Murder and Anger (Matthew 5:21–22)
   • Old Testament Law: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). This addressed the physical act of killing.
   • Jesus’ Teaching: “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. … Anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
   • How It’s Stricter: Jesus extends the prohibition against murder to include anger, hatred, and even insulting language, treating these as equally serious offenses.
3. Divorce (Matthew 5:31–32)
   • Old Testament Law: Deuteronomy 24:1–4 allowed divorce under certain conditions, such as a certificate of divorce for “indecency.”
   • Jesus’ Teaching: “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
   • How It’s Stricter: Jesus limits the grounds for divorce to sexual immorality, rejecting the broader interpretations of his time (e.g., divorcing for trivial reasons) and emphasizing the sanctity of marriage.
4. Oaths and Truthfulness (Matthew 5:33–37)
   • Old Testament Law: “Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made” (Numbers 30:2). Swearing oaths was common to ensure truthfulness.
   • Jesus’ Teaching: “Do not swear an oath at all. … All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”
   • How It’s Stricter: Jesus prohibits all oaths, demanding absolute truthfulness in speech without the need for vows, as integrity should define a person’s character.
5. Retaliation and Love for Enemies (Matthew 5:38–44)
   • Old Testament Law: “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Exodus 21:24) allowed proportional retaliation for justice.
   • Jesus’ Teaching: “Do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. … Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
   • How It’s Stricter: Jesus replaces the principle of just retaliation with non-resistance and radical love, extending compassion even to enemies, which exceeds the law’s demand for fairness.

In each case, Jesus shifts the focus from external adherence to the law to the internal disposition of the law written on the heart, demanding a higher standard of righteousness that addresses motives, thoughts, and attitudes. This reflects his teaching that true obedience to God’s law requires transformation from within.

The great satire of the synoptics is the corrupt trial of Jesus by the Jewish elite, where corruption after corruption come to the surface only to be overcome by a legal loophole sleight of hand. Hamilton comments

However, the Synoptic chronology is not impossible, for as [Josef] Blinzler says, the prohibition of legal proceedings on feast days was less strictly enforced than that of holding courts on the Sabbath, ‘therefore it is quite thinkable that it did not seem to the Sanhedrists an infringement of an important rule to start a legal trial even on the night of the Pesach’. It is the argument of this article that all the Gospels witness to such a trial which, while viable in its date, contravened accepted practice as subsequently enshrined in the Mishnah at many points, as Blinzler shows. For example, the proceedings took place in the house of Caiaphas, not in the Temple, and though Jesus had not actually pronounced the Name of God, he was condemned as a blasphemer. He was not offered an advocate; the witnesses were not warned before being examined; nor were they called to account for false witness. The members of the Sanhedrin, although witnesses of the alleged blasphemy, took part in the passing of the sentence, though it was not legal for them to do so…As Blinzler says, one is not able ‘to spare the Sanhedrin the reproach of very serious infringement of the law’. The question is, why did they do this?‘ It will not do to suggest that the occasion was a sham—the proceedings were undoubtedly carried through before a competent bench of judges’. Nor can their contraventions of the Mishnaic code be simply dismissed by saying that it was not yet in force. It is true that it was not codified until about 200 AD, and reflects conditions which obtained then, but it certainly enshrines earlier practice to a considerable extent. For example, Segal says that in describing Temple ritual, it may be employed with confidence. May not the same apply to legal practice?… Before the Feast of the Passover Caiaphas is reported to have said in council: ‘It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish’ (Jn. 11:50). Expediency was the factor which determined his conduct. When the opportunity unexpectedly presented itself to secure Jesus’ death, he and the priests avidly took it. Spurred on by their hatred of him; persuaded that as he was a false teacher, his execution on a feast day would be appropriate; and pressurized by shortage of time, they held his trial on the paschal night. In this trial they contravened normal legal practice at many points. The fact that they could do this in the legal sphere makes it likely that they could, because of the exceptional circumstances, also contravene ritual practice. For the exigencies of the case demanded that they work through the night. Early next morning therefore, they still had not eaten their paschal meal [emphasis mine]. (Hamilton, 1992, pp. 335-336) … Certainly therefore, an execution would have been contrary to the sabbatical nature of the first paschal day. However, Deut. 17: 12-13 prescribes the death penalty for anyone who opposes the decisions of the priests, to be carried out so that ‘all the people shall hear and fear’, and the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:4) gives special instructions for the execution of a rebellious teacher: ‘He was kept in guard until one of the three feasts, and he was put to death on one of the three feasts’. This shows that in certain circumstances executions were permitted on feast days. Moreover, [Paul] Billerbeck says that where an example is required ‘to protect the Torah from wilfully severe transgressions, an execution may, as an exception, supersede a feast day’. (Hamilton, 1992, p. 335)

Mark would conclude, as Helen Bond notes, the corrupt death of Jesus would be viewed as the reason for the destruction of the temple: punishment. Paul says the commandment makes sin sinful beyond measure.