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



The Jewish law is ignored a lot in Christian circles but that does not change the fact that objectively speaking it is part of the Christian faith.  Bible prophecy which is yet to be fulfilled speaks of God's Temple in Zion to which all nations go (Micah 4:2).  As the Temple was exclusive to Jews the Church says it refers to God calling Jew and non-Jew to his Temple in Jerusalem in the future.  The text is clear that the law of God will come out of that Temple and Micah could have meant no other law but the Torah.  Saying its something else is too speculative and what other law did Micah practice and know?  The Jewish Law will be restored some day.

Catholic tradition follows the teaching of the Church father Irenaeus who is considered a reliable source for what the apostles of Jesus and therefore Jesus taught.

In Against Heresies he wrote concerning Jesus, The Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them, is shown from His words. "For," He remarks, "it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." And again: "It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment." And, "It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay." And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion's followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them, as He does Himself declare: "Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited."

The Bible teaches (Romans 13 - Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law) that Jesus and what he did for us changed how we worship but not how we live so the moral law of the Old Testament is still in force.

Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfil them. He said not a line would pass away from them. They are scriptures invested with divine authority. Even those who contradict the verse and say Jesus did change the law, must agree that even if he did he was saying that the law is to be honoured by being fulfilled and to be accepted as correct. He was still praising it despite all the murders it commanded and that were committed in its name.

Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount said that such and such was said to the people and that he had such and such to say. Jesus was talking about the Jewish Law in the Bible. The person having done the saying was God. Jesus is clearly saying that those sayings are sacred and divine.


This Catholic site complains that despite the Church having condemned the idea that the Jewish Scriptures in the Old Testament are opposed to the Christian New Testament, some still treat both sets of scriptures as contradictory. The Church however rejects the idea that the New Testament or Jesus Christ abrogated or superseded the Old Testament. The Church rejects the view that the Old Testament Covenant was abandoned by God and replaced with a New Covenant. Vatican II in Dei Verbum and Nostra Aetate said this was a total misunderstanding. John Paul II said on November 17 1980 that God never revoked the Old Covenant with the Jews.

The Baltimore Catechism states,

Q. 392. Were all the laws of the Jewish religion abolished by the establishment of Christianity?

A. The moral laws of the Jewish religion were not abolished by the establishment of Christianity, for Christ came not to destroy these laws, but to make them more perfect. Its ceremonial laws were abolished when the Temple of Jerusalem ceased to be the House of God.

Comment: The laws must have been very sacred when Christ came for their sake. The Catechism is implying that it was moral for Jesus to send people out to stone gays to death in 29 AD though he supposedly changed that directive when he died the following year or whenever! 


The apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 1 wrote that to trust him is to trust Jesus and the law of Moses is still in force with its commands about murderers, homosexuals and perjurers and so on. The mention of homosexuals affirms that Leviticus is valid for condemning gay sex.  Notice how it keeps it simple - the text just condemned sex between man and man period.  It was not about any alleged circumstances or forms of gay sex.  Let us read:

7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.

9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service.  

So he is clear that the Law of God given in the Bible is good but only if not abused. He advocates its correct use. He said it was only bad for the people who were unrighteous and needed punishment. It is Christian doctrine that the Law is absolutely correct. Paul was implying that if God speaks and commands you to murder sinners then you must obey. When he said believers are not subject to it he must have meant not that they have the right to disobey it but they are saved from the penalty for breaking it. Jesus takes the rap as the one who was punished by God for our violations of the law.

"Paul is able to say that the law is done away with, and yet not done away with, but established by justifying faith (2 Cor. 3:7-17; Rom. 3:31)." See page 124, Christ Our Righteousness, (Mark A Seifrid, IVP, 2000). Thus Christian faith is not faith unless it approves of divine law.
In Romans 3:27, Paul says that the law is not about works but about faith that saves.

Some use the New Testament teaching that we must obey the spirit of the law not the letter of the law as saying we can interpret the nasty laws figuratively not literally. Such an interpretation is an exaggeration of the command and makes the law useless. It is really just an excuse for saying you are a believer in the Bible's divine authority when you are not. The spirit of the law refers to understanding it correctly and not exaggerating any of its laws. A judge who sentences a shop lifter to jail for three years may see that penalty laid down in the books of the law. But he will be ignoring laws about extenuating circumstances. Thus he is putting the letter above the meaning of the law.

In Acts 15, the apostles grappled with the problem of non-Jewish Christians and their relationship to the Jewish Law. As they didn’t want to burden the converts, they decreed that they must abstain from blood, eating meat sacrificed to demons, fornication and the meat of animals that were strangled. The Church concludes from this that she has the power to restore as much of the Jewish Law as she wants. In principle, the Church can require that adulterers be stoned to death. Acts 15 however only describes an emergency situation. Plainly, it cannot be concluded from it that the Church should restore parts of the Law if it wants. It sounds more like a situation where the whole Law was required but it was not possible for it to be entirely kept.

The decision was not made to please anybody. If the apostles had wanted to please people they would have given in to the Jewish Christians who considered it necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and put down circumcision as a requirement. After all, that is what the meetings and deliberations outlined in Acts 15 were about.

The decision implies the whole Law ideally and if possible should be advocated for observance. The Church says that the ban on fornication is a moral law. Yet in Acts 15 it is listed as banned. Murder was also forbidden by the Law of the Jews given by God as well as fornication was. Does the apostles banning fornication and not murder mean that the Gentiles were allowed to commit murder? Of course not. Clearly the apostles were saying that the ban on eating blood, meat sacrificed to pagan gods or the meat of strangled animals were moral laws as much as fornication was. Thus they cannot be done away. What is wrong is wrong and that cannot be changed.


Jesus in John 8 has to deal with the woman caught in adultery.  The law of Moses says she is to be stoned and her accusers test him to see if he breaks the law or says it is wrong even if he does not counsel breaking it.  Jesus of course will not do that. Hank Hani writes, "In context, Jesus hardly abrogates the law of Moses. Instead, he says, 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her' "(John 8:7). He says he does not condemn her. He means hate and punish. He tells her to leave her live of sin so he does condemn her sin. He condemns her as a sinner but not as somebody who is to be condemned to death.  Why did Jesus not stone her?  Well the mob had left and the command is that a group must do it not an individual or perhaps Jesus was telling the mob that he too was a sinner.


In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Sections 577-582), we read that the Church teaches that Jesus alone obeyed the Law of Moses perfectly and that the Law is one inseparable whole so he who breaks one rule breaks them all.

The Catechism agrees that Jesus did not abolish the Law at all but he only interpreted it properly and attacked the laws that had been added to it by tradition.

The Church says that Jesus did not do away with the laws on diet but only expressed what they were about and that they were meant to be reminders of the need to keep the heart pure. In other words, pigs were made unclean food by God though they were not really unclean in themselves just to remind the people that they were sacred. If they eat pigs they lose these reminders and their hearts become unclean so eating pigs is unclean. The Church however ignores the food regulations. Jesus is thought to have declared all foods clean. But even if Jesus did declare that all foods were clean in themselves that does not imply that the food regulations can be abandoned if their purpose was the purpose he gave them. On the contrary it implies they should still be kept.

The Church agrees that the Law was right to condemn the foods as unclean implying it agrees that gays and adulterers should be stoned to death.


The Worldwide Church of God used to teach that keeping parts of the Law of Moses was necessary for Christians. After a dramatic change in doctrine the Worldwide Church of God issued a new statement of their position on the Law of Moses liberalising their teachings. They said that the Bible never says the Law was the means of salvation. They said that the Mosiac law is a unit and the word Torah or Law in the Bible is singular as is the word nomos used in the New Testament. James 2:10 is seen to indicate that since to break one law is to break them all that the Law of Moses with its 613 commandments is a unit.

They say that Galatians 3:19 says that the Law was in force only until Jesus would come and 2 Corinthians 3:2-11 says the Law is katargeo which means rendered inoperative. But they say that we are still free to keep any part of the Mosiac Law if we wish. The New Testament stresses freedom which they take to mean that if you want to keep the unclean food ban you can do it as long as you understand it is up to you. The study says that the New Testaments answers both yes and no to the question, “Are the Old Testament Laws Still Binding on Christians?” They point to Hebrews 8:10 quoting Jeremiah 31:31-33 as valid for our day though Jeremiah says in it that God will write the Law of Moses on our hearts. The study says the Laws of the Old Testament are completely valid but we just obey them in a new way as exemplified by Christ. In other words, instead of worrying about damp on your wall like the Law commands you worry more about the kind of heart you have. They argue that you can forget about the damp as long as it will do no harm and that is love. So you worry about the spirit of the Law not the letter.

This new teaching is exactly the same as the orthodox Christian teaching on the Law. But notice how it lets you make laws to kill gays and adulterers if you want to. The fact that the New Testament says that the Law is inoperative in the sense that it does not force us anymore for God works within us to make us want to obey it is ignored. The New Testament never says we are free to drop the requirements of the Law. Moreover, you could keep the spirit of the Law and the letter. The idea of the spirit of the Law needing to be obeyed implies that the Law wants you do follow the spirit of the Law or to obey. If the Law says I should have dampness on my wall treated then I cannot ignore this without turning against the spirit of the Law. Keeping the Law would be good discipline for me if I am already saved so not keeping it would be gross ingratitude to God.


Those of us who see how evil the law of God is in the Bible should be disturbed by the Church’s reverence for it and the possibility that the Church could restore its inhumanity.  Read the apostle Paul in his Romans 3:31, King James Version (KJV), who denies that there should be any intention to void the law.  "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."  It indicates that our faith in Christ establishes the law, the law having been validated by it.  The Bible says that Jesus’ mission was to establish or reaffirm the law. Whether you think that lines up to how Christianity treats the law that is not the point. The point is that the law is still all objectively true for the Christian faith and this "truth" is reflected in Christianity. It is intrinsic.

Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, undated
Biblical Law and its Relevance: A Christian Understanding and Ethical Application for Today of the Mosaic Regulations, Joe M Sprinkle, University Press of America, 2006
Christ and Violence, Ronald J Sider, Herald Press, Scottdale, Ontario, 1979
Christ’s Literal Reign on Earth From David’s Throne at Jerusalem, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, undated
Early Christian Writings, Editor Maxwell Staniforth, Penguin, London, 1988
Essentials, David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1990  
Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Uta Ranke-Heinmann, Penguin Books, London, 1991
God’s Festivals and Holy Days, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1992
Hard Sayings Derek Kidner InterVarsity Press, London, 1972
Jesus the Only Saviour, Tony and Patricia Higton, Monarch, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, 1993  
Kennedy’s Murder, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1964
Martin Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1999
Moral Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1912
Not Under Law, Brian Edwards, Day One Publications, Bromley, Ken, 1994
Radio Replies Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
Sabbath Keeping, Johnie Edwards, Guardian of Truth Publications, Kentucky  
Secrets of Romanism, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984  
Set My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill & Son Ltd, Dublin, 1967
Storehouse Tithing, Does the Bible Teach it? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1954
Sunday or Sabbath? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1943  
The Christian and War, JB Norris, The Christadelphian, Birmingham, 1985  
The Christian and War, Robert Moyer, Sword of the Lord Murfreesboro Tennessee 1946  
The Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982  
The Enigma of Evil, John Wenham, Eagle, Guildford, Surrey, 1994  
The Gospel and Strife, A. D. Norris, The Christadelphian, Birmingham, 1987  
The Jesus Event, Martine Tripole SJ, Alba House, New York, 1980  
The Kingdom of God on Earth, Stanley Owen, Christadelphian Publishing Office, Birmingham
The Metaphor of God Incarnate, John Hick, SCM Press, London, 1993  
The Plain Truth about Easter, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1957
The Sabbath, Peter Watkins, Christadelphian Bible Mission, Birmingham  
The Ten Commandments, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1972  
The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Brooklyn, New York, 1968  
The World Ahead, November December 1998, Vol 6, Issue 6  
Theodore Parker’s Discourses, Theodore Parker, Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, London, 1876  
Those Incredible Christians, Hugh Schonfield, Hutchinson, London, 1968
Vicars of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi Books, London, 1995  
War and Pacifism, Margaret Cooling, Scripture Union, London, 1988
War and the Gospel, Jean Lasserre, Herald Press, Ontario, 1962  
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1992
Which Day is the Christian Sabbath? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1976