Board index ‹ Bible

[Kesha]

Why do Christians follow the laws of the old testament?

Im not a Christian and my understanding of abrahamic faiths is extremely basic . So anyways , werent old testament and the laws such as levictus meant for israelites and samaritans ? So then why do Christians follow these laws ?

[jimwalton]

We certainly don't ignore the Old Testament. The Old Testament is God's revelation of Himself to the world through the people of Israel, and it's the written record of the covenant (the contract between God and His people).

The Old Testament is God-breathed just like the NT (2 Tim. 3.16), and the prophets of old spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1.21). The OT reveals God just as the NT does (Hebrews 1.1), and the OT is considered Holy Scripture just as the NT is. We have to remember that the early church used the OT as their "Scriptures," and that every reference to the Scriptures" in the NT is speaking about the Old Testament. The early church used the OT at every turn for its teaching and preaching because the NT hadn't been written yet.

The NT was created to tell the story of Jesus and to show how the OT was fulfilled by Jesus. It tells how salvation by grace through faith was always the plan (Gal. 3.6-14), and how the "rivers" of the Eden Problem (sin), the Babel Problem (deity falsely construed), God's covenant, God's presence, redemption, and resurrection are integral to the whole (both OT and NT) to reveal God to us and bring us to salvation.

As Dr. Craig Evans says, "The Old Testament provides the context and framework for understanding the New Testament. In other words, the New Testament wouldn't makes sense to us without the Old Testament." Augustine said, "The New Testament lies hidden the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New."

It is my perspective that when Jesus said he fulfilled the Law (Mt. 5.17), it means He fulfilled all of the Law, so that's why we don't follow the laws of the OT. The law that Christ fulfilled was the law in general—not just one part of it. He "fulfilled" it in that He did what the law failed to do: showed people how to live. The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. So the rule of thumb now is to follow Christ’s example. We can, in that sense, ignore the law, because if we follow Christ’s example, we'll get the actions of the law and the attitudes of the heart. Since the law was supposed to reflect the right attitudes, starting with the right attitudes will more often than not bring about actions that are in keeping with the law. But we don't do them because of the law; we do them because that is what godly attitudes bring about. So all of the law was fulfilled in Christ and our behavior now is not based at all on the law but on Jesus's example (cf. Romans 13.8-10). The coinciding with many points of the law is to be expected, but we are not living by even that section of law.

We don't follow the laws of the OT any more because it has to do with the context of theocracy. Civil law (the capital crimes) was intended for Israel as a theocratic state. When Israel/Judah fell (586 BC), the civil law became defunct with it. The civil law was not intended to be carried out by every government in history. It is no longer something secular governments are responsible to carry out. It is no longer something the Church is supposed to carry out. It is not a law or rule for us as Christians.

The NT doesn't have the job of either affirming or disaffirming the information from the OT. The NT is there to reveal Christ, and therefore it’s not a criterion for determining OT law. The more pertinent question is "What is the nature of the OT law?" First of all, it's pertinent to ancient law. Secondly, it's situated in the old covenant, and pertains to that covenant. It's telling how Israel should act based on the culture of the day. Third, it pertains to sacred space. We can't extract the law from those contexts. Just because it's in the OT doesn't mean it's a law for all time. It doesn't legislate for us.

It pertained to their covenant. It would be like saying, should America fall one day, would we or any other future person still live by our constitution and Bill of Rights? Of course not. That's for us. But aren't there good, noble, and moral ideas in it? Sure there are, but such things are defunct when the nation falls. We might still recognize the morality of certain elements, but we would no longer live under that agreement.

[Towhee]

> Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. So the rule of thumb now is to follow Christ’s example.

I wholeheartedly agree. So should we follow His example and keep the Sabbath, eat nothing unclean and celebrate His Father's feast days? I think so. Many christians think that it's wrong to imitate Christ.

> Just because it's in the OT doesn't mean it's a law for all time.

I have no idea why a person would say this. It's certainly not something found in Scripture.

Psalm 119:142-143 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth.

Psalm 119:160 The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.

God's Law is "His ways", "His paths". Unless we are to believe that His ways change then yes, they are for all time.
​

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

So, until heaven and earth pass away and everything that has been prophesied comes to pass, no part of God's Law will pass away. We see in Revelation 21 that these 2 events happen at the same time.
​
> It pertained to their covenant.

It pertains to the new covenant too. Check out Hebrews 8, the new covenant is God's Law put within us, written on believer's hearts.

[jimwalton]

>> Just because it's in the OT doesn't mean it's a law for all time.
> I have no idea why a person would say this. It's certainly not something found in Scripture.

We have at least two places in Scripture where it's found. The first is Mark 7.19, confirmed by Peter's vision in Acts 10. The second is in Acts 15.28, where it was determined by the Apostles and the Jerusalem Council that Gentiles didn't have to follow the Jewish law.

> It pertains to the new covenant too. Check out Hebrews 8, the new covenant is God's Law put within us, written on believer's hearts.

Correct, and the covenant written on our hearts is not the old covenant (8.4) but a new one (8.6-9).

[Towhee]

I appreciate your response. I have a few thoughts that I'd like for you to consider, please hear me out. In Mark chapter 7 the Pharisees see Jesus and His disciples eating with unwashed hands. This passage has nothing to do with clean and unclean animals. Nowhere are clean or unclean animals even mentioned in this passage. When they see Jesus eating with unwashed hands they ask why He doesn't walk according to the "tradition of the elders". Jesus rebukes them for teaching as doctrines "commandments of men". These "traditions of the elders" and "commandments of men" are not God's Law, they are what the Pharisees had added to God's Law, what they followed instead of God's Law. It's talmud instead of Torah. Jesus goes on to say, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!" And "thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

So was Jesus saying that people could eat anything they want now, that the God's dietary instructions don't matter? If that's the case then He would have been just as guilty as the Pharisees. Jesus Himself would have been "establishing His own tradition" and "rejecting the commandment of God". Jesus would have been a hypocrite to rebuke the Pharisees for setting aside God's Law, then immediately setting it aside Himself.

What He was pointing out was that eating with unwashed hands didn't defile a person. You may have noticed that "Thus he declared all foods clean" is in parentheses or brackets. That's because it's added text, Jesus didn't say it.

And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.

Perhaps you never noticed that this little section is a parable. I hadn't until it was pointed out to me.

If Jesus did declare that people could eat whatever they want, His disciples didn't get the message. In Acts 10 we learn that Peter, at least ten years later, still refused to eat anything common or unclean. Imagine that, having enough conviction that he would refuse God Himself. Why would Peter be perplexed as to what the vision meant if Jesus had taught them that they could eat anything now? Either Peter is incredibly stupid or Jesus didn't teach that. Eventually Peter realizes that he should call no MAN unclean.

Then, some 20 or so years after the event in Acts 10, Peter writes 1 Peter. In it he quotes Scripture, "since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” Where was this written? What Scripture was he quoting? Peter was quoting Leviticus 11, where God's dietary instructions are given.

You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them, and become unclean through them. 44 For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.

Leviticus 11:43-44

Leviticus is the only place where "You shall be holy, for I am holy" is written and it's always associated with keeping God's Law, specifically His dietary instructions.

As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:14-16

Why in the world would Peter be quoting God's dietary instructions found in Leviticus if he thought all things are clean? It just doesn't follow. Also, if Jesus did make all things clean then why do we still see unclean animals after that? Why is Paul telling gentiles to "touch no unclean thing"?? Why are there unclean animals in Revelation 18?

I hope that you'll mull these things over. I hope that you will ask yourself why God says "and you shall not defile yourselves with them, and become unclean through them." then Jesus says "nah, it doesn't defile you, it never really did matter". I hope that you'll ask yourself why "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever" then Jesus agrees and says no part will pass away, only to flip flop and say that major parts of God's Law already had passed away.
​
> Correct, and the covenant written on our hearts is not the old covenant (8.4) but a new one (8.6-9).

You left out verse 10, "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts". The new covenant is God's Law written on believer's hearts. Even the dietary instructions found in God's Law.

Please think it over.

[jimwalton]

> This passage has nothing to do with clean and unclean animals.

Of course it doesn't. Nor is it even about the Law, but instead only about the Pharisees' additions to the Law that had become part of their tradition and therefore part of a law they tried to enforce, as you've said.

The dietary restrictions are set aside in the time of the Church. What is not clear from the text (or even from our historical records) is *exactly* when this happened. As far as we know, Jesus observed the dietary restrictions of the OT. There are many examples from the Gospels to show us that Jesus lived by the Mosaic Law, so we have no reason to question his conforming to the dietary laws as well. The question is "When did they change?"

In Acts chapter 10 there is an explicit teaching that the food laws were kaput. This event is fairly soon after the resurrection (though we're not sure of the exact date).

The Church Council of Acts 15 happened in about AD 49. There the Church leaders reinforced the message Peter had been given: the Jewish dietary laws no longer applied.

By the time we get to Mark 7.19, which was written possibly in the late 50s (though many scholars put Mark in the 60s), we find that Jesus Himself had "declared all foods 'clean'." These words are the explanation of Mark, probably from Peter himself. They are looking back at this event and now interpreting it: the food change came from Jesus Himself.

When exactly the Church came to that understanding and made that transition is tough to pin down. If we use Acts 10 as a marker, it was soon after the resurrection. But we also know that the transition was difficult for the Jewish apostles (Gal. 2.12), and it was not just easily and automatically applied. It seems to have been a gradual transition over time for the Jews, and for the Gentiles, it was OK for them not to have to live by Jewish dietary rules. But it doesn't seem that anyone was condemned for eating pork or shellfish, or not condemned for not eating it. There seems to have been quite a bit of tolerance in that regard (Rom. 14 could be an illustration of the same point on a different matter).

Joel Marcus, in his commentary on Mark, says it this way: "Mark is not saying that Jesus was claiming that all foods had always been clean, but that he was actually changing things by pronouncing that from this point forward all foods are now clean. All foods were clean from Noah until Moses, not so from Moses to Jesus, and then all clean from Jesus on."

> You may have noticed that "Thus he declared all foods clean" is in parentheses or brackets. That's because it's added text, Jesus didn't say it.

Correct. Jesus didn't say it, but Mark (and presumably Peter) did.

> this little section is a parable

The question is: What exactly is the parable? There's an event of the disciples eating, the Pharisees' accusation, and Jesus's explanation (Mk. 7.1-13). Then there's a textual break, where Jesus calls the crowds to him and gives what could be an introduction to a parable (v. 14), which SEEMS to be v. 15 (v. 16 is probably inauthentic). Then there's another textual break, where Jesus is in the house with only his disciples. I assume they're asking about the parable of v. 15, which is what Jesus quotes in vv. 18-19, at the end of which we get Mark's (Peter's) editorial.

> His disciples didn't get the message. In Acts 10 we learn that Peter, at least ten years later, still refused to eat anything common or unclean.

If I may speculate (but with reasoning), the book of Mark is FILLED with deprecating comments about the disciples—about how little they understood, how they never got anything right, how they didn't "get it," and how they failed. The only positive thing about the disciples mentioned in the ENTIRE BOOK is Peter's confession in Mk. 8.29. The book even ends with disciple failure. It's one of Mark's emphases.

Given that reality and understanding, it's very likely that they realized this later, after the resurrection, as they reflected on all the things Jesus did and taught. Jesus was actually doing it at the time, but they didn't get it (as they missed most of what Jesus was actually doing at the time).

> 1 Peter 1:14-16

Craig Keener writes, With "obedient," Peter "picks up the image of 1.3: born anew. They were no longer what they had been before, and they should obey God (cf. 1 Pet. 1.2, 22) as children obeyed their fathers." Obedience to God should characterize all we do, as Peter writes.

It's no surprise he picks up Levitical language of holiness, but he's not quoting anything about dietary instruction. He has picked up the language of v. 45 pertaining to the Exodus and God's covenant relationship with His people, or even possibly Lev. 19.2; 20.7, 26, with no relationship at all to dietary matters.

Peter has been talking about the factors that protect us through our lives so that we receive the end result: the salvation of our souls (1.9). It is our faith, enabled by God's power, that is our shield from deleterious forces (1.5). Now we see that it is our holiness, enabled by God's holiness, that protects us from evil desires. Faith is our new mindset, and the allegiance we have towards God is a result. Faith also engenders a different way to live because we understand the world differently. Holiness is the practical separation we have from all segments of the old creation: our natural, sinful selves, our sinful desires, our walk according to the things of the flesh, and even our old way of thinking. Since we are now "in the know" instead of living in ignorance of such things, we need to make complete our severance from all things that are profane (meaning unsanctified).

> Why are there unclean animals in Revelation 18?

The desert was a symbol of non-order, and the animals that occupied it were seen in the same light. This is a common OT image. Babylon conveys the sum total and symbol of pagan culture oriented against God. As such Babylon is similar to the desert: the paragon of non-order and contrary to God. Symbolically (not literally, of course) it's the specific dwelling place of demons and a haunt for impure (unclean) animals, detestable (against God's order) in God's sight. The image is that of a chaotic land inhabited only by creatures of disorder.

> You left out verse 10

Yes I did, but it's of no consequence. "The law" (our relationship with God) will become part of our beings, more than just directing our behavior. It is referring to the the indwelling of the Holy Spirit—something the ancients didn’t have.

[Towhee]

That's like saying that homosexuality was fine from Noah until Moses, not so from Moses to Jesus, then fine from then on. Was homosexuality wrong before Moses?? Noah knew clean from unclean animals. Noah knew of God's holiness. To think that Noah was eating unclean things is silly. And yes, I am familiar with the verse saying Noah could eat "everything", but unless one assumes that God wished for Noah to eat blood, or things offered to idols, or even human flesh, there were obvious limitations.

> the book of Mark is FILLED with deprecating comments about the disciples—about how little they understood

Oh, sorry, when I said that the disciples didn't get the message I didn't mean that they didn't get it right away, I meant that they NEVER got it. That's why I followed it up with Peter denying God to His face and then quoting the food laws in Leviticus.

> Holiness is the practical separation we have from all segments of the old creation: our natural, sinful selves, our sinful desires, our walk according to the things of the flesh, and even our old way of thinking. Since we are now "in the know" instead of living in ignorance of such things, we need to make complete our severance from all things that are profane

I agree wholeheartedly. And what exactly is "sinful"?? How does a person know what sin is?? Sin is violation of God's Law. If we're to make a complete severance from all things that are profane, then we must know what is profane and what is holy. Eating things that God calls an abomination is profane. God tells us not to eat pork, then says "be holy as I am holy". He is separate from those things and He wishes for us to be too. God's Sabbath is holy. God's feast days are holy. That's why they're called "holy days" oddly enough. Can anything that God makes holy be not holy anymore??

> Yes I did, but it's of no consequence. "The law" (our relationship with God) will become part of our beings, more than just directing our behavior.

Jesus had God's Law written on His heart. Was it of "no consequence" to Him?

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.

Deuteronomy 6:6

You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul

Deuteronomy 11:18

My son, do not forget my teaching, but let your heart keep my commandments, for length of days and years of life and peace they will add to you. Let not steadfast love and faithfulness forsake you; bind them around your neck; write them on the tablet of your heart. So you will find favor and good success in the sight of God and man.

Proverbs 3:1-4

My son, keep my words and treasure up my commandments with you; keep my commandments and live; keep my teaching as the apple of your eye; bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart.

Proverbs 7:1-3

God ALWAYS wanted His people to have His Law within themselves, on their hearts and minds. But not all of His people did it so He promised to put His Law within believers hearts as the central part of the new covenant. And the ONLY reason that He wanted His Law within believers hearts is so that they would obey Him.

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Ezekiel 36:26-27

The very reason that God promises to give us a new heart and His Spirit is so that we will obey Him.

> It is referring to the the indwelling of the Holy Spirit—something the ancients didn’t have.

This gets said a lot, yet with no proof.

Teach me to do your will, for you are my God! Let your good Spirit lead me on level ground!

Psalm 143:10

You gave your good Spirit to instruct them and did not withhold your manna from their mouth and gave them water for their thirst.

Nehemiah 9:20

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:21

The idea that people didn't have God's Spirit to guide them before Jesus is just silly. They had the Spirit and they were expected to obey God's Law.Again, I hope that you will consider these things.

[jimwalton]

> That's like saying that homosexuality was fine from Noah until Moses, not so from Moses to Jesus, then fine from then on.

I'm not sure what part of what I wrote you're referring to, so this comment confuses me. What's like saying that?

> Was homosexuality wrong before Moses??

Sure. Genesis 19 takes place in about 2000 BC.

> And what exactly is "sinful"?? How does a person know what sin is??

The Bible gives us a handful of definitions and dozens, if not hundreds, of examples.

> Sin is violation of God's Law.

Sin is more than that. Sin, in the Bible is ignorance, error, inattention, missing the m ark, irreligion, transgression, iniquity, rebellion, treachery, perversion, abomination, evil, guilt, or trouble, depending on what text you're reading.

> Eating things that God calls an abomination is profane.

The term "abomination" is not placed on all species of forbidden animals. Milgrom identifies these: "It is reserved for marine animals (10), birds (13), flying insects (23), and reptiles (41-44), but it is missing in the passages that deal with the quadrupeds (2-8, 24-28, 39-40) and the 8 exceptional vermin (29-38). There is a legal and ritual distinction between 'abomination' and 'impure.' Abomination refers to animals whose ingestion is forbidden but which do not pollute, whereas impure refers to animals that, in addition, pollute by contact."

> Can anything that God makes holy be not holy anymore??

The Temple was desecrated and was no longer holy.

> Jesus had God's Law written on His heart. Was it of "no consequence" to Him?

That's an illegitimate analogy. Jesus was a Jew. What we are told in Acts is that Gentiles are not required to follow the Jewish law to be followers of Christ.

> The very reason that God promises to give us a new heart and His Spirit is so that we will obey Him.

This is not the whole picture. God also promises the new heart and the Spirit so that His presence can abide with us, so that we can live in relationship. The Spirit is the functional equivalent of Jesus in us. Another reason for the new heart and the Spirit is as a testimony to the world of the reality of salvation. The Spirit is also the agent of sanctification in us.

> This gets said a lot, yet with no proof.

It's said a lot because it's true. You can't prove a negative. In the OT the Spirit would come upon people. He was actively at work in leaders and prophets. Leaders were endowed with the Spirit for the tasks that they did. But there's never a mention of being indwelt or that His coming upon people was a permanent situation. Jesus says that the Spirit would come with permanence after His ascension (Jn. 7.39). Jesus speaks of a future baptism of the Spirit (Mt. 3.11). When Jesus speaks of the Spirit upon His followers, it is always a future, never a present, reality.

> The idea that people didn't have God's Spirit to guide them before Jesus is just silly.

The Spirit was active, for sure. The key verse here is John 7.39, however. The Spirit was active but had not been sent to indwell until Pentecost.

[Towhee]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I have a few more thoughts about what you said, if you don't mind.

> The dietary restrictions are set aside in the time of the Church.

That's a gratuitous assertion. A person could just as easily say "god is a flying spaghetti monster".

> As far as we know, Jesus observed the dietary restrictions of the OT.

As far as we know??? Jesus loved His Father's ways. Of Jesus it is said, "I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart." And John tells us "By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked." By the way, when He returns do you think that He will be different?

> In Acts chapter 10 there is an explicit teaching that the food laws were kaput.

Nope. I've read it, and reread it. Many dozens of times. Nowhere in Acts 10 does it say that any part of God's Law was done away with.

> There the Church leaders reinforced the message Peter had been given: the Jewish dietary laws no longer applied.

That's an interesting take....considering that all 4 of the things that James says to avoid are Torah commands, 2 of them are from God's dietary instructions. Nope, nothing there saying that it's OK to eat pork. And most people miss a very important verse there, "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues." In other words, tell the gentiles to avoid the worst things that they've been doing, the rest they will learn every Sabbath.

> By the time we get to Mark 7.19, which was written possibly in the late 50s (though many scholars put Mark in the 60s), we find that Jesus Himself had "declared all foods 'clean'."

Hmm...again an interesting take. Instead of things happening chronologically, we should understand them by when they were written. Most people have the book of Acts written after the Gospel of Mark. Again, Jesus never "declared all foods clean", as you said, this passage is about the Pharisees added laws.

> the food change came from Jesus Himself.

So this has Jesus condemning the Pharisees for changing God's Law, only to change it Himself? You yourself said that Jesus ate nothing unclean, did He start after this point? Did anyone listening start? We see in Acts 10 that Peter clearly hadn't started.

And this happens AFTER Jesus says "until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." So nothing will pass from the law until ALL that has been prophesied happens....except the food laws. Has ALL been accomplished? ALL??

Also, if Jesus declared all foods clean, He was doing it WHILE the "old covenant" was in effect. This was before He died. He didn't say "after I die, things will change." Everything in Mark chapter 7 is in the present tense. This would have been Jesus advocating rebellion against His Father. People were looking for reasons to kill Him. If He was teaching people to disobey His Father then according to Deuteronomy 13 they were commanded to kill Him.

But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Deuteronomy 13:5

[jimwalton]

>> As far as we know, Jesus observed the dietary restrictions of the OT.

> As far as we know???

Yes, as far as we know. We know close to nothing about Jesus's eating habits and his choices of food, but there's no reason for us to think anything other than He subscribed to the Mosaic Law, for many reasons.

>> In Acts chapter 10 there is an explicit teaching that the food laws were kaput.

> Nope. I've read it, and reread it. Many dozens of times. Nowhere in Acts 10 does it say that any part of God's Law was done away with.

You can't be obtuse about these things. In the sheet were 4-footed animals, reptiles, and birds. Peter regards the selection as "impure or unclean" (Acts 10.14). God (the voice) said, "Don't call anything impure that God has made clean," and the command was to eat it. Eat that which is unclean. The vision appears 3 times to emphasize the importance of God's message.

> Nope, nothing there saying that it's OK to eat pork.

Are you expecting him to list every kind of meat? What they are not to eat is meat with blood in it. The implication is that meat that is cooked is OK. Any meat.

> Instead of things happening chronologically, we should understand them by when they were written

We take both into consideration. I take the Gospels to be telling us truth about what Jesus said and did during His ministry here, but we also know that thought (theology and understanding) developed in the years following Jesus's ascension. We take it all into consideration.

> So this has Jesus condemning the Pharisees for changing God's Law, only to change it Himself?

Correct. It was in Jesus's purview to change it (cf. Mt. 12.8).

> If He was teaching people to disobey His Father then according to Deuteronomy 13 they were commanded to kill Him.

He wasn't teaching people to disobey. Rather, He was teaching them that in Him all the Law was fulfilled.