HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations


Does the New Testament say Jesus considered the law of Moses to be abrogated?

The Old Testament starts off with five books that it calls the Torah meaning the Law of Moses. Christians claim that the moral directives of that law still stand but we don't need to keep the non-moral rules about feasts and stoning people to death. They say God revealed the Law and as Jesus came to save us he fulfilled the law and made it obsolete.

The New Testament never says that the horrifying punishment laws of the Torah, and the other rules laid down by God through Moses have been done away. Those who dispute this must be answered.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 refers to God refreshing the covenant with a new one but this new one is not an altered one.  It is just one that reaffirms the laws in the Torah and makes a fresh start in getting them obeyed and requiring that obedience.  The New Testament depends on Bible prophecy so it has to accept that doctrine.  Jesus referred to this covenant when he gave the cup to his disciples saying it was the new covenant in his blood which is the main reason why Christian communion ceremonies are invalid and unJesus for they disobey the Mosiac covenant.

Jesus said that he didn't come to do away with these laws but to make them more severe (Matthew 5:17). He said that to sum up the law was to advocate the great commandment of loving God with all your power and ultimately, while loving your neighbour. You love your neighbour for God so that it is really God you love. This being so it follows that each part of the Law is equally important and each act must be done with the right inner disposition so merely external obedience is useless.

Yet Christians claim that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John repudiate the Law, punishment laws, ceremony laws and so on and all.

The Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus said he didn’t come to do away with the Law but to perfect it and make it better so we can consider the matter closed. 

Some scholars and Christians say that Jesus was only saying that about the Jews. If you had Jewish blood in you, you had to keep the Law or Torah. Karen Armstrong claims that the apostle Paul never suggested at all that the Jews should just ignore this Jewish Law (page 62, The Bible, The Biography, Karen Armstrong, Atlantic Books, London, 2007). She writes in her book that Paul valued Judaism and the covenant it had with God that makes Jews to be the sons of God. And she says also that the Judaizers or Jewish Christians Paul was condemning so viciously and vigorously in his letters were those who wished for Gentiles to be circumcised and therefore made Jews and accordingly be required to keep the whole Law perfectly.

Even if she is right, it follows that the Church and Christian nations should enable and encourage Jews and Jews who believe in Christ to obey the bloodier parts of the Law, including the parts where God demands that sinners such as adulterers should be cruelly put to death by stoning. She would say that non-Jewish believers in Christ being allowed to ignore the Law does not mean that the Law is to be disobeyed but only that the Law does not apply to them. Their being allowed to disobey it doesn't mean it was abolished. A law can only be abolished for you if it applies to you and has authority over you in the first place.

So anyway Jesus did not do away with the Law at all. That much is certain.  If the Law is bad or draconian, we need a Jesus who says so not one who says it is right and who says it needs fulfilment for fulfilment rules out just dropping rules or cherry-picking the law. What if Jesus did away with the stoning laws? Ceasing to put the rules into practice does not mean that they are being rejected. Jesus is saying they are so holy that they have been fulfilled so we may not practice them. Even if that is not very coherent the intention is still to say the laws are in fact good and right.

Let us go on.

All agree that Jesus Christ sought to restore the spirit of the law, in other words its real meaning. They think that Jesus was of the opinion that the Jews were taking many of its rules out of context and making them harder than they were meant to be. See how this works in relation say to the killing of homosexuals by stoning. Even if you can’t kill them this way you have to wish you can and could purge them from your midst. There is no way spirit of the law talk can get around that. The law is still dangerous.
· “ Luke 9:51-56 has Jesus condemning James and John for wanting fire to come down from Heaven to consume those who rejected their preaching. Jesus snapped that they did not know what kind of men they were and what kind of spirit or personality was in them for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”

Jesus simply meant that killing everybody that did that would mean that there would be nobody left to follow him. James and John wanted God to do the murdering while the Law says people are to do it for God so this section has nothing at all to do with the Law. They reminded Jesus that Elijah had murdered people by miraculously summoning fire from Heaven. Jesus would not have condemned this miracle. He would also believed that this was not murder for God willed it and would have been angry at his disciples for wanting God to kill without caring if it was God’s will or not under the circumstances.
· “Jesus forbade self-defence which the Law allowed when he said that whoever will protect his life will lose it (Mark 8:35).”

There are other ways to interpret this verse. It is very vague. It may refer to the man who protects his life as being more valuable than God – who uses forbidden methods of preserving his life. It does not mean that we should get ourselves killed for he instructed his disciples to run away from persecution and to do what is right for themselves for God’s sake (Matthew 10:23).
· “Jesus said the edict condoning divorce (Deuteronomy 24:14) was wrong so he did repeal some of the rules of the Law so he must have been opposed to the cruel ones too.”

He could have disagreed with the Law on divorce while accepting the nefarious decrees as well. We have to accept what he never explicitly rejected to be on the safe side.

It is not true that Jesus said the edict was wrong. The edict only tolerated divorce and did not command it. Therefore there was no way out of it but to condone divorce so the law was right in the circumstances.

Jesus said that Genesis forbade divorce so the divorce law was only made because God knew if it wasn’t the people would fall away from him. Thus, he was not changing the Old Testament law at all but only declaring that the divorce law was only temporary. It was right under the circumstances.

But a better suggestion is as follows. Jesus was asked by the Jews about divorce in relation to remarriage. Jesus said that this kind of divorce was wrong. The Law only allowed divorce but said nothing about allowing remarriage so there is no disagreement. Jesus said that Moses wrote the commandment allowing divorce out of the stubbornness of the people. He does not say that Moses was forced to allow the evil of divorce. You could say that somebody had to write a law forbidding murder because of the stubbornness of the people. That doesn’t imply that murder is only to be forbidden when the people are bad.
· “According to our blessed Lord, the Law and the Prophets were in force until the coming of John the Baptist for the good news is being proclaimed now (Luke 16:16).”

Whatever sense Jesus intended in this, he is not stating that the Law and the Prophets have lost their value and significance for he must have approved of much in them at the very least. He said they were inspired by God so he approved of all they taught. He probably meant that the writings had served their purpose which according to him, was preparing for his gospel. If he did not then he said that they were bad news and had to be done away for the good news which he would not have said for it was blasphemous and destroyed his own claim to be the Saviour for he needed those writings to justify his claims.

A law is something that is forced on you. Jesus might have meant that the Law must still be kept but is no longer a law for the coercive element has been taken away. God makes keeping the Law a pleasure in which case it is a blessing and a liberty not a law.

The best explanation for what Jesus said was that until John came there was no divine revelation for John was a prophet of God. All there was until John came was the Law and the Prophets. If you wanted to hear the word of God that was all you had.
· “Luke 21:20-21 has Jesus telling his followers to abandon their country and flee when they see it surrounded by armies.”

This is supposed to do away with the rule that the Jews must defend their country. God commanded many holy wars. Jesus said that they will know then that the end is nigh. When the end is nigh what is the point of fighting? And why would they fight when they were not soldiers? I get really sick of some of the arguments that biased Christians come up with.
· “Jesus didn’t campaign for the execution of anyone who laughed at his gospel so the Law for the murder of apostates is abolished. Paul did not tell the Corinthians to murder the man who committed incest though that was a capital crime under the Law. Paul forgave the people who committed capital crimes like homosexuality and adultery instead of asking them to submit to execution”.

The silence of the gospels does not prove that Jesus did not.

If Jesus refused to have those who mocked his gospel slaughtered then it was because if he killed everybody who did that he would bring in no converts at all for there would be nobody left to preach to. The Torah laid down that only initiated believers who abnegated the faith were to be destroyed. No one was given the right to kill those who scoff at the gospel in ignorance.

The early Jesus People were subject to enough hatred without killing people. They had to live in peace for the greater good which was the propagation of the gospel. When it was safe to do so some sinners might have been urged to commit suicide in a horrible and brutal manner to satisfy the Law.

The early Jesus People had no facility for eradicating them.

The way the man was described by Paul as being handed over to Satan for the destruction of his body would suggest that the man was put on death row or that Christians were trying to kill him by their prayers.

If the Law were abolished we would expect to read about it in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. This book claims to report the developments and adjusting of the disciples of Christ. And we don’t.

The Law said that the Lord dwelt on the Ark of the Covenant so he could dwell in Temples made with human hands. In Acts we read that God does not do this (7:48; 17:24). Some say that this proves that the Law is abolished. If that is so then God who once dwelt in the Temple does so no more. But this would be a contradiction and not an abolition. The Bible teaches that God is always the same and that he dwells everywhere. If he is not in the Temple like he is everywhere then he is not God. He is forcing the Jews to think that he is in the Temple where he promised to live and he is not there at all.

One answer to this reasoning is that God only promised to dwell on the Ark of the Covenant and so when the Ark was placed in the holy of holies, a special chamber in the Temple, God was in the temple. His special presence was in the Temple though he was everywhere else too. The Ark had been lost to the Temple for centuries indicating that God was in the Temple no more except in the normal way. It was true when Paul said what he said that God was not in the Temple for the Ark was absent. This solution avoids the notion of a change of Law.

Perhaps Paul, by saying that God does not live in human Temples has the idea of a God who is confined to one place at a time in mind and he is repudiating it.
· “There is no record in the Book of Acts or anywhere in the New Testament about Christians carrying out the Mosiac Law. It does not say they are binding therefore they are not.”

All that means is that they haven’t said. It does not mean that they didn’t see them as binding.

They might not have carried out the badder laws for they may not have been able to. They were a persecuted and detested sect.

And finally Acts does say that they adhered to the Law.

Stephen, the first Christian martyr, was arraigned before the outraged Jews for allegedly saying that Jesus will change the institutions and commandments of Moses’ Law (Acts 6:14). Christians zoom in on Stephen’s not defending himself against this accusation. They argue that it demonstrates that it was true. But Stephen answered them. Acts says that his long speech was his answer. And that speech attests to God giving Moses the Law and establishing circumcision and to the Temple being sacred. These two facts prove that Stephen was accused in the wrong. Stephen may not have said that straight out that he was convinced of the current force of the Law. If anybody asks me, “Do you believe in the Law as an authority?” And I say, “Moses got it from God and I believe in God” I am obviously implying that I do believe in it. I am not saying no. I am saying, “Yes, I am not going to dispute what God reveals”. Stephen, following the Lord Jesus, taught that the Law must still be obeyed. Luke, the author of Acts, fully approved of Stephen’s doctrine because he praised his for being full of grace and gifted with miraculous powers (Acts 6:8,10). He stated that Stephen’s teaching was inspired by the Holy Spirit (6:10) meaning that Stephen was a prophet, and true prophets cannot err in religious matters.

Acts 16 has the apostle Paul putting up with a spirit medium for days before he exorcises her. This alleged to infer that he approved of her antics indicating the abolition of the Law which forbade witchcraft and spiritualism. But maybe Paul had been praying to God to take away the spirit without anything happening all along. When God told him that prayer was to be answered Paul turned on the Spirit and expelled it. If he was then the episode does not tell us anything about the status of the Law in his sight.

Acts says that Jesus saved sinners with his blood, that is, by dying on the cross. That implies that it is wrong to sacrifice animals for sins or does it? It does not for a man who pays his fine can pay a superfluous one for some benevolent reason. And if animal sacrifice was commanded by God it would mean that if God made provision for sacrifice it only means that animal sacrifice is now unnecessary not wrong.

The Christians according to Acts lived a communistic way of life. They shared all things together. There is a different way presupposed in the Torah. This does not prove the Torah is not for Christians because the Torah only commands what is to be done in a non-communistic society and neither allows or forbids communism. The family unite which the Torah upheld was like a communist society. The way was cleared for the emergence of a Church that considered itself to be a family and behaved as one.


Paul is reputed to have said that Christians don’t have to observe the Law of Moses, over and over again. He never said anything of the kind.

· Christians claim, “Paul said that justification could not be gained by keeping the Law but only be faith without keeping it (Romans 3:20,28). Faith is opposition to the Law. The Law is abolished.” Yes he said that but he also said that faith does not abrogate the Law but upholds and fulfils it (Romans 3:31). Faith must then enable you to keep the Law but the Law has to be kept in force before faith can do that or try to.

Paul said that the Law was given to show both Jew and Gentile why we need a saviour and that we are sinners. It cannot do that unless it stays valid forever. Otherwise people could do evil things and say God has changed his mind about these things being bad.

Paul stated that the only reason the Law failed to justify was because its command about faith and trust in God was ignored which meant it was not being kept right. He did say that anybody who kept the Law as it should be kept would be justified and right with God (Romans 2:13) for God promised that they would be. When Paul declared law keeping useless he meant superficial law keeping. That is, external actions with no love or sincerity or faith in them. Competent Christians accept this (see page 167, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible). Just as a person who does not care about you merits nothing by serving you so you merit nothing before God if you serve him with a similar attitude. So the argument is wrong. Since the Law could not save because people would not obey its law of faith it follows that by asking us to keep this law of trust and confidence and by saying that the Law has not been abrogated by faith that Paul wants us to keep the whole Law.

The Protestants say that Paul preached salvation by faith without good works in the sense that you can be sinful and still be smuggled into Heaven even though you should not be there. God pretends that you are holy though you are not for Jesus obeyed God and earned Heaven for you and atoned your sins. If their interpretation is right it does not confute the notion of the Law still being in force but means that Jesus has compensated for our failures to follow it. So the law is in force.

Some say salvation by faith alone does abrograte the Law for the Law prescribes punishments and this doctrine says that you are free from the penalty of the Law. This penalty is the separation from God due to sin not the other punishments. We know this for even the New Testament says that God will punish his sons to keep them right. In the Law, God never said that he would not forgive those who were stoned to death. Perhaps they pay for their sin by their death and that’s the matter ended. But all God said was that he forgives all who repent.

Others say that if you are saved by faith alone then you don’t need to obey the Law so it cannot exist anymore. But the Bible says that if you are saved you will be inclined to obey. What is right is always essential. Paul says that we are saved by faith alone because we will not obey the Law fully and it is the only way we can be made righteous in the sight of the Law. For him, the two were perfectly compatible for Law forces you to obey but faith makes you keen to obey. The rules may no longer rules when you obey them willingly but they are still being said to be right.

The Catholics say that Paul just meant that when you turn away from your sins and are forgiven because of your faith you are saved by faith alone but only as long as you stay pure from sin that divides you from God. This does not contradict the Law which taught the same thing by preaching that God forgives.
· Christians argue that “St Paul taught that the laws of Israel are over for he pronounced the Jewish Law a thing of the past and that there is no Law now (Ephesians 2:15; Galatians 2:15-21). He proclaimed Christ to be the end of the Law (Romans 10:4). In Ephesians 2:14,15 he stated that Christ cancelled the Law with its commandments for Christians.”

A law is something you are forced to obey. Paul was just saying that the Law of Moses though a law is not a law in the sense that one has to be forced to keep it any longer. He thought that people had to try and force themselves to keep it with little help from God so that they would realise that they couldn’t do it and depend on his mercy and on faith. Now that was all over and anyone who obeys God will do it because they want to and enjoy it and have God assisting them in this task.

His teaching does not eliminate the laws of the Old Testament for Christians. Far from this he said that the Law was all about love. He was saying it was love to keep the capital laws. God cannot change these rules without ceasing to be love. He did not even declare the ritual laws of the Old Testament to be abrogated for instead of that, according to the Christian interpretation – which I question - they were fulfilled by Christ for us so that we have no need to keep them. That would be saying that they are abolished only in the sense that they are not binding on us but strictly speaking they are not abolished. They cannot be abolished when Jesus has to keep them for us to make up for our failure to keep them.

How could the Ephesians verse that supposedly says the commandments of the Law are cancelled for Christians forbid the commandments of the Law when Paul said that the Law was love and that Christians must love? The Law forbade pre-marital sex, adultery, stealing and laying and so do Christ and the apostles. It means that the Law must be kept but that it is no longer law.
· Christians argue, “God asserted that the faith isn’t spread by violence (2 Corinthians 10:4) while the Law advocates the forced conversion of heretics in the form of ‘Convert and stay converted or die!’ He told us to be at peace with all. These things prove that the capital laws are things of the past.”

The Law never said that forcing a person to believe and obey was any good. It commanded the love of God which is voluntary. Force can be used to only indirectly effect sincere conversions and this was the sort of compulsion the Law desired. We successfully force our children to believe in Geography.

God rejection of violence as being good evangelism is saying that intimidation cannot make people faithful or believe. But force can spread the faith in certain ways and circumstances so more probably it forbids force that puts people off. The command to be at peace with all is not taken literally by any Christian for they aren’t at peace with certain sinners. They forbid some forms of peace when they hamper greater peace. Christians would say the Law could not be annulled by this verse for the Law never advocated conversion by force. It does in some ways but it never demands that say pagans must be converted at the point of a sword.

Christians argue, “The New Testament does away with the morality of the Law to keep the Sabbath proving that the Mosiac morality is nonsense. Moreover, the penalty for Sabbath-breaking was death by stoning. The Sabbath is abolished so the death penalty got the same fate. We need a Sabbath day. The rule that we must keep the Sabbath is a moral law. The NT revoked so much of the morality of the Law of Moses. The ceremonial laws were done away too even though it was immoral to keep these for they were signs of gratitude to God. This means that the ethical laws are abolished.”

It is surmised that since the New Testament commands cheerful free and uncoerced giving to the Church (1 Corinthians 16:2; 1 Corinthians 9:7) that the Old Testament law of tithing was done away. But that law applied to the Jewish priesthood and the Church was a different set-up. The early Christians in Jerusalem did continue paying tithes to Judaism.

It is argued that “God says that the Law that the Christian follows is written not on paper but in the heart. Written Law cuts one off from God but the one in the heart gives life. (See 2 Corinthians 3:3-11). Nobody can assert that the Law of Moses is everlasting after reading this for this means that the written Law is no more. In verse 11, Paul says that the Law has passed away”.

The law of the land can be written in my conscience and in my heart though it is down on paper too. Its being in me does not mean that I have abolished it for myself. But I have abolished it in the sense that I like following it so it is no longer a law, a law is what compels. I have the Holy Spirit to tell me how to follow it and so I don’t need the written law.
· “Paul said that vengeance was God’s job not ours (Romans 12:19). The Law commands vengeance so Paul is making it plain that it is abrogated.”

Just before that Paul told his people to avoid vengeance as far as possible not absolutely. He said that God set up governments to avenge crime. Moreover, if vengeance is God’s job we will still have to do it for him. Even the Law restricted vengeance for you can’t have a society if all take revenge all the time. Paul was quoting an Old Testament Psalm when he said that vengeance was God's job and the Psalms all upheld and were under the authority of the Law. Paul means that vengeance is God’s business except where the Law says otherwise so by implication we are to get involved too as avengers but only where the Law says. He knew his readers should be smart enough to see that he did not mean to be taken too literally.

Paul stated that through avengers and an avenging government God takes vengeance. The verse is no help in showing the old laws are gone.
· “Romans 15 condemns judgment which the Law allows”.

It condemns judging those who are merely following their conscience (v 3,4). Paul allowed judgment in the case of a man living with his stepmother.
· “In 1 Corinthians 9:20, Paul said that he acts towards the Jews as if he were under the Law like them though he is not. The Jews therefore had to obey it and he had not. The Law is cancelled.”

He just means that the Jews obey under compulsion and he does not so in that sense he is not under the Law. This not saying that the Law is wrong or wrong now. Also, Jesus obeyed the Law for us so we are counted law-keepers if we become true Christians and we must keep the Law not to gain salvation like the Jews did but in thanksgiving for salvation. The Law is compulsory for us but it is not compulsory in the sense that it is required for getting into Heaven.

That a Christian can still obey the law shows that the rules are still regarded as correct and sacred. The Christian has to hold that the laws God gave endorsing the murder of rape victims are holy and good.
· “Paul declared that he acts as one without Law when he is among people who have no law (1 Corinthians 9:21). He was opposed to hypocrisy so he is saying that the Law of the Jews is abolished.”

He says in this verse that he follows the Law of Christ. To be without the Law means that you are not forced by the Law to obey it so that it is not a real Law for you.
· “Paul claimed that the righteousness he got from the Law was rubbish compared to his being saved by Jesus (Philippians 3:6,7). God must have dropped the Law when he wrote like this.”

Since Paul said that nobody could keep much of the Law unless they were saved by faith in Jesus (Ephesians 2:8-10) he did not mean righteousness in the sight of God here but righteousness in the sight of man which according to the standard of the Law was not true righteousness for all fall short (Romans 9:31). He is not criticising the Law. He is saying that the Christian is able to fulfil the Law by obeying the Law and that Jesus has obeyed the Law for you to make up for the defects so that you stand before God as a perfect law-keeper. When a person is saved Jesus has kept the Law for them so they are credited as law-keepers and now they must keep the Law not to gain salvation but in gratitude for salvation.
· “Christians do not have to observe the Law of Moses. It is written that Jesus ‘wiped away the handwriting of the note (bond) with its legal decrees and demands which was in force and stood against us (hostile to us). This [note with its regulations, decrees, and demands] He set aside and cleared completely out of our way by nailing it to [His] cross’ (Colossians 2:14). Jesus destroyed or repealed the laws that were against us.”

The verse is about the decrees that condemned us.

It only says that Jesus forgave sins when he died on the cross by dying on the cross. Forgiving sins against the Law is not doing away with the Law but saying the Law is right. How could the Law be done away when Jesus saw it as being so important that he had to suffer and die for every transgression against it? When Jesus atoned for sins against the Law by his death that should show the Law is still in force for you can’t forgive breaking a law when the law is repealed.
· “Paul complained that certain people were preaching that the Law was to be followed by Christians (1 Timothy 1:6-8) proving that he believed them to be in error.”

He said they were abusing the Law. He said that unlike them he recognised that the Law was given for bad people not good people. If the Law were given for good people as the heretics said then they thought that unless good people keep it they will not be saved which is intolerable blasphemy and bigotry.
· “God has revoked the Torah in Hebrews 8:13.”

This verse says that God has done away with the Old Covenant and replaced it with a new one. The Covenant was that God would be the God of the people if they were true to him. They would not be his people so he made a New Covenant under Christ. The Law is not the Covenant. You just have to obey the Law to be in the Covenant. However, the only thing new about the New Covenant is that it is a repeat of the Old. The contract was the same, “Be my people and I will be your God”. The first contract was broken by the people for they did not obey the Law through faith and use Jesus to keep it for them and the second is the exact same contract except that this time we have and are aware that through trust and faith and the obedience of Jesus in our place to make up for our sins against the Law we will be reconciled with God. The substitutionary obedience of Jesus means that though we should obey the Law we don’t have to when it comes to acquiring salvation though we have to obey it to be moral for Jesus has obeyed it for us and was valuable enough to God to ensure that God would be satisfied with his obedience as much as that of many people.

The New Testament says that since the Jews turned their backs on the saviour that God rejected them and applied the promises he made to Israel to its continuation – not successor for Jesus came to fulfil Judaism and to add to it and not to destroy it! These promises concerned ownership of the Promised Land and loads of material and spiritual blessings. They were conditional upon obedience to the Law. So when the Church was promised the blessings of the Law pertaining to its status as the continuation of Israel the people of God and warned about the dangers of disobedience and the punishments it could bring it follows that the Law was still to be obeyed by the Church. See Those Incredible Christians, page 54 and Matthew 11:43.

Conclusion: The notion that many have that we are free to regard the law of Moses as immoral in places for Jesus came to fix things and bring in more humane principles is nonsense. Jesus's law is that you regard the Law of Moses as right. The evidence is that that means you regard it not just as right in principle but in practice as well and must resume stoning people to death in accordance with the rules God laid down.

The Law of Moses: Is It Valid Today?

The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum

Is Old Testament Law for New Testament Christians

This Christian site accepts that the New Testament did not run the Law of Moses out of town but accepted it. It argues that Matthew 5 has Jesus stating that he has no intention of doing away with the Law of Moses and what he does with it is he gives out a stricter interpretation of it. But strangely it argues then that Jesus did discontinue some parts of the Law. 1 Samuel 15:22,23/Isaiah 1:11-17/Jeremiah 7:21-23/Proverbs 21:3/Matthew 9:13/23:23 are said to make no sense unless the law can be given three distinctions which are Moral, Ceremonial and Civil. Not once however in these verses does God even hint that the Moral laws and the Civil laws and the Ceremonial laws are to be treated as three units. What they are is three different kinds of law in one law based on love. The first two cannot be changed because of the link with morality but the latter can if it is only temporary and states that clearly. You can’t change what love is. The law plainly commands and practices hatred so God is assuming that we need to hate in order to love properly so that is how a law of love can encourage and foster hatred.

Christians, assuming that they are to have any distinctions at all, are to have just Moral and Ceremonial law. The Christians make the distinctions for they hold that the moral law of God is unchangeable while the civil and ceremonial law of God is changeable. But when there is no evidence that moral and civil are not the same they can only hope for the abolition of the Ceremonial law. They simply have to hold that it is right to slay homosexuals and other sinners Moses wanted dead in the name of God.

A case for holding that Paul believed that the law that could not save was a legalistic interpretation of the Law and not the law itself as it actually was is dismissed. Paul never hinted that he meant only the interpretation of the law was dangerous for salvation not the Law itself. Paul’s word for the Law backs this dismissal up.

Then the site suggests the correctness of the shocking statement of the theologian Geisler that all God’s laws must be in accord with God’s nature but need not be necessitated by that nature and so they can be changed. In other words, God can forbid you to pay taxes to the temple so that the poor may be given the money and then he could change that law. But that does not explain how he could command the stoning of certain sinners. Any law he makes, changeable or unchangeable is designed to bring about the best. So if the Israelites were better rid of these sinners so were we. If the temple can do without money it can at other times so the law would have to be reinstated. There is a sense then in which all his laws are permanent. They are permanent but if other permanent laws become more important than them they are just put to the background and not done away until they can be put back to the foreground again. Not one of the laws in the Torah are claimed to be changeable or even look like that kind of law. They are all different from the one about paying money to charity instead of the temple. God in the Law said you could murder a burglar who breaks into your house at night with impunity. Now is that a law that isn’t necessitated by God’s nature? It does no good at all. It clearly indicates that God does not accept the view that he has any laws that his nature does not require him to make but which he makes anyway. It is unnecessary and it is against the nature of a good God. Geisler is wrong.

The Law claims to be right. In other words, we are meant to see that it is right even if we don’t believe in God. God told the Hebrews that other nations would consider them to be the wisest nation on earth because of their Law (Deuteronomy 4:6,8).

At least Geisler would admit that stoning people to death is not necessarily incompatible with God. He would say that if God doesn’t allow it now, he still wants us to have the mindset that we would do it if he asked. We want to do it but it is because he asks us not to that we don’t. The fanaticism is still there.