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



We might be told by some that the Mosiac Law, composed by God and contained in the first five books of the Bible, was always and only for the Jews and that non-Jews werenít bound to keep it then and certainly arenít now. It is untrue that the New Testament teaches that God meant the Law for the Jews and that Christians are exempt from it as are Jews that convert.
Nothing in the Law itself says that it is meant only for the people of Israel in principle.
Many Christians hold that when Jesus returns he will return to a world or many nations that will be mainly Christian and which will be run by the Old Testament Law. The parts of the Law that have been changed and fulfilled by Jesus will of course be excluded. Reconstructionists will maintain that we have to pave the way for the second coming by persuading governments to adopt the Old Testament Law now. They want to reconstruct the political world in accordance with the Mosiac Law which is why it is called Reconstructionism. Reconstructionism is often called Dominion Theology. Its big leaders are in the USA. David Chilton, Greg Bahnsen and Gary North are three of them.
Paul at Romans 3:19, 20 states that everything the Law of Moses states is stated to those who are under its authority and that therefore the whole world stands convicted of sin before God for nobody in the world is justified by obeying the Law for all it does is point out sin. This clearly states that the authority of the Law applies to the whole world. Even those such as children who know only a little Law cannot be saved by obeying it. He also indicates that the Law is supported by right reason and by divine inspiration which is why even those who donít have the written Law of Moses are still bound by it and condemned by it.
He says in Romans 2:12-16 that the Gentiles who have never been educated in the Law of Moses are in fact aware of its teaching for it is written by God in their instincts and in their consciences. So it is clear. The rule that if you catch a man in bed with another man you should drag them out and stone them to death is regarded as what a conscience that isnít twisted and perverted by sin will see as correct. By implication, you will see that homosexuality is wrong. If you donít you must be guilty of grave sin and are blinding yourself to the light of the Holy Spirit.
St Paul wrote that people who were circumcised were bound to keep the entire law of Moses and he gave no hint that he meant this applied to only Jews. He wrote this in Galatians 5:2,3. If the people he had been writing to had all been Jews they would have been circumcised before he came along. So clearly Paul was acknowledging that the Jewish law was for all for if it wasnít then even circumcision couldnít bind the Galatians to keep the law. Abraham circumcised all his slaves, people of a different race (Genesis 17). He was putting them into the covenant at Godís behest as Genesis 17:23 tells us. 

It is stated that the Bible never promises that the Law will be restored. If it is silent on this problem it is safer to assume that it will be. The bits of Old Testament prophecy that say that the world will obey the Lord are taken to mean the period after Jesus comes back. By obey these prophecies meant the Law and so Christians should not be teaching that Jesus has done away with the Law and certainly will not be restoring in when he comes again.
Many of the things the people of Israel were not allowed to do by the Law were things the Law permitted non-Israelites to do. This is supposed to disprove Reconstructionism. The Hebrews could not eat an animal that died naturally but could give it to an alien to eat it (Deuteronomy 14:21). The Hebrews could not eat the animal that died by itself in case it was infected. It did not matter to them as much if its meat sickened or killed an outsider. Christians would argue that it is better for the person who is pleasing to God to be alive and well than for a sinner to be. The Law interprets itself and it is said that Israel was a chosen and holy nation so that was the logic behind the precept. The Law is saying that the holy and enlightened come first. The Law forbidding the meat to Israelites really means: ďDonít poison the holyĒ or ďDonít eat an animal that died by itself as a reminder that you are holy to meĒ, and it just singles out the Israelites because they were the only sanctified people at that time. The rule does not disprove Reconstructionism. In fact when the Hebrews were allowed to lead the non-Jews into defilement though it must be bad for the non-Jews in some way it shows that Godís law allows harm to be done to non-Jews. The Law was pronouncing them inferior in such a way that it could only do it if it had authority over them or moral legal authority if not actual legal authority.
It is thought that the diet laws show that the Law was intended only for Israel because when the banned animals were sacred among the surrounding nations that it would have been too much to expect them to adopt the same taboos. That is like saying that belief in one God was intended only for Jews for other nations preferred a crowd of different Gods. It makes no sense. The diet laws were everlasting so even if the nations stopped having sacred animals the laws could be retained as a reminder of the evil of idolatry. And it could be that the animals were banned not just because the neighbours disliked them but because they really were dirty.
Israelites were prohibited from charging interest on loans given to other Israelites but were permitted to charge other nations (Deuteronomy 23). This was a precaution against greed that would divide the people. It did not matter if it upset aliens. But aliens who joined Godís people so as to become a part of them would have been excepted. Taking interest in itself is not concerned which is why it was permitted to take it from outsiders Ė it is only forbidden for some other reason.
If another nation made the Law of Moses its own it would merely cease to charge interest except when it is a foreign nation it is dealing with. Maybe God just banned charging your own countrymen interest and the reason Israel is mentioned is because it was the only country hearing the Law.

Israel was not allowed by God to sow two kinds of seed in a field (Deuteronomy 22:9). This is for some symbolic reason. Those who oppose Reconstructionism claim that the symbolism is that Israel is to have different laws from other nations. But it could simply mean that Godís people are to be separate from sinners. Anyway, what has seed got to do with people?
1 Corinthians 10:23 is alleged to oppose Reconstructionism. There it is written by Paul that all things which are allowed are not necessarily the best. This is supposed to mean that certain things are not wrong if done by those who are not Godís people but are wrong if they are. As an example, he says that eating meat that was consecrated to idols is permitted but is sinful and not beneficial if it makes those who feel that it is sinful sin. Paul is saying that we must obey our conscience even if it is wrong and is certainly not saying that certain kinds of mistakes are not mistakes when done by Gentiles. All he means is that we should avoid what is permitted if it is a stumbling block to another person.
Romans 2 and especially verse 14 are thrown at those who say that the Laws of goodness were meant to be observed by all nations as refutation. It just says that non-Jews donít have the Law of Moses which is hardly the same as saying that they arenít supposed to follow it or that they donít know it by some sixth sense.
Read Ezekiel 5 in which God complains that the Law of Moses ďmy statutesĒ was kept better by non-Jewish nations than by the Jews. The Amplified Bible says that these were heathen nations and puts heathen in [ ] and admits in the Introduction that words in these brackets are not in the original text so donít make the mistake of reading pagan into the reference to nations for pagans donít keep the Law. Some say that God is being sarcastic and not serious. But the Law itself says that segments of people from other nations would practice it. These are the nations Ezekielís god means. Even if it meant the Jews in other nations it would prove that the Law had to be kept everywhere and just wasnít restricted to Israel alone.
The Lord revealed that other nations would be envious of the wisdom of his Law as lived in Israel and would moan that theirs wasnít as clever (Deuteronomy 4:6,8). If it is wise then they should follow it. God could not criticise non-Israelites for practicing his Law if it is wise. It is obvious that it was not for Israelites alone. The pagans would not find it wise if God changed the Law of right and wrong for them. He would be saying that even if right and wrong exist they should be put aside for only what he commands should be obeyed.
Aliens who lived among the children of Israel had to live by its laws (Leviticus 24:17-22). It would be hypocrisy to say that they were lucky to be under the Law and that the Law was not intended to be adopted by other nations. The aliens could have been confined to ghettoes and put under surveillance so that they could have been exempt from the Law. But God wanted them to follow it so he wants the world to do the same.
In Galatians 3, Paul tells the Galatians, this people were Greeks not Jews, that if they are going to get circumcised and obey the Law they have to obey all of it. The Law was binding on non-Jews who knew of it and were circumcised. If it had been cancelled it wouldnít matter. He said in Galatians 4 that the non-Jewish Galatians had to be redeemed from the Law by the death of Jesus meaning that the Law was binding on them despite them not being Jews. By redeemed he meant that they were delivered from needing to keep the Law for salvation. Any breaks of the Law were atoned by Jesus and so the believer didnít have to worry about them and so the Law was not a burden or a punishment for him. He was redeemed from it.
Paul wrote in Romans 15:4 that everything that was written in the Old Testament was written to teach the Church. He was writing to Gentiles as well as converted Jews in Rome. This tells us that the Law of Moses is still relevant even to non-Jews and he wanted it taken seriously (page 11, Not Under Law). He had to for it is the Old Testament and not the New that tells us that going to spiritual mediums and marrying cousins is wrong (page 11) which is one example out of many. The implication is that if we want to stone homosexuals and adulterers to death we should. You canít say that these laws are irrelevant even if you say they are not obligatory. Even then you cannot condemn anybody who carries them out. You canít condemn Jack the Ripper for slaughtering prostitutes. The doctrine that the Old Testament is relevant today is called Theonomy. It has been popularised in the book, Not Under Law and is growing among Christian fundamentalists and that should give us all much concern. Itís bad news. We know what the Catholic Church did when it was able to practice Theonomy.
It is hard for some to believe that the Law was meant for all when not all could get to the Temple to have the prescribed rites of worship and sacrifices for sin performed. But God says that he understands and will accept the personís good intentions instead. Non-Jews had no right to try and establish a line of priests for God decreed that his only priests were to be the Levites, a Jewish tribe.
Religion says that Jesus had to obey the entire Law of God to make up for our disobedience to the Law. Jesus esteemed the Law greatly when he did that meaning we ought to do likewise and obey it in thanksgiving. If Jesus was God then we have God obeying his own Law - a sure sign of how permanent and essential he considers it. Jesus was after all to be the demonstration of the perfect man.
The Church says that Jesus had made full atonement when still a child the first time he obeyed the Law for one act of Jesusí is reckoned to have infinite value and therefore merits our redemption from sin for he is God. That means we should obey the Law ourselves. If as the Church claims, Jesus atoned by obeying more than he needed to then that accentuates that we should keep the Law despite being non-Jews for he obeyed it for us. If we are saved we should obey it not because we are bound to but because we want to.
Deuteronomy 31:12: ďAssemble the people Ė men, women, and children, and the stranger and the sojourner within your towns Ė that they may hear and learn [reverently] to fear the Lord your God and be watchful to do all the words of this law.Ē Even alien visitors or strangers had to be commanded to keep the Law. They could have been told to respect the Law without being asked to keep all of it. It could just have been just like a pagan being asked to not interfere with the Christians in a Christian country but allowed to do what they liked in private. But God wanted pagans to obey the Law entirely and to believe what it said should be believed.
The Law permitted the chosen people to buy other members of their nation as slaves and to buy slaves from other nations. The former had an easier time legally than the latter. The latter were not as well protected. This seems to imply that the Law is not for all. But the slaves had to believe in the Hebrew religion first before they could be bought for Yahweh was afraid that the Israelites would find the pagan influence irresistible. If a law authorises racism that does not mean that the law claims no authority over the hated race. The Law of Moses proved it thought it had authority over other nations when it dictated them what to believe.
Some Christians believe that the Saturday Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel (Exodus 31) so Gentiles cannot be bound to keep it. It can be asked that since the discussion was between God and Israel here what would he mention Gentiles for when there were none there? But I say there were some there who were made part of Israel too. Gentiles are bound to keep the Law. It is also thought that since the Lord told Israel that they should keep the Sabbath because he brought them up out of Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:15) that this was the purpose of the Sabbath and since Gentiles were not saved from Egypt they cannot have a duty to keep the Sabbath. But the verse could not mean that when the Jews believed God rested on the seventh day of creation to sanctify the seventh day. What it means is that the day God hallowed by rest is to be hallowed by them in gratitude for his rescuing them from Egypt. The Sabbath was always to be respected even though God could only reveal this as a duty to Israel at the time of Moses. This is the explanation for Deuteronomy 5:2-12 which says that the Sabbath law was not given to the fathers of Israel. It shows that this text cannot be used to establish a case for the Sabbath being a temporary and non-essential law.
Perhaps the Law was only for Israel for Israel was a theocracy? It is perhaps true that the Israelites set up a theocracy. If so, this theocratic rule extended to Israelites and believers who were out of Israel as well. The pope rules Catholics no matter where they are and has a theocracy in the Vatican City. God gave Israel the law but put officials in charge to administer it. The Hebrew religion not God was the head of state.   
God was head of state over the people of Israel because Moses and the priesthood consulted with him regarding legal and political issues and he gave commands. Judges did not make their own rules but enforced Godís rules. God was in the place of a king and since God should be king of the world it follows that all nations should be ruled by God. God being king makes the system one that can be extended no bother for God is king and he is everywhere. It would be more awkward if men ruled for God and God did not act like a king and speak for himself.
The people consented to be subjects of the Law of Moses which was the law that ruled them as the citizens of his kingdom on earth. Moses read the laws of God to them and they said they would do all it contained. God did not impose his Law on the people so it was a democratic choice. Exodus 19:5,6 is used to prove that God imposed his will on the people but it does not say that at all. The people were to be true to God and God would be true to them so it was their choice. The people were asked for their consent meaning God would have found another people for his Law if they hadnít so the Law had to something that all nations should ideally observe for they had got the Law revealed to them by them.
The Lord once he got their consent commanded that the factions of Israel be kept in line by force. If a part of the people wanted to break away and adore idols they had to be utterly destroyed. Nobody was allowed to leave. When people who believe that God is bad and pagan gods are better have to be forced to stay in Israel or be destroyed it is clear that it would be inconsistent to hold that the Law is for Israel alone when people who had separated by schism and ceased to be Israel were still persecuted and forced.
There is no biblical evidence that the ethical or religious rules of the Law were for the people of Israel alone. Incidentally, the ceremonies of the Law are ethical laws for God would not make these demands unless they were the best.  The fact that the Law says all pagan nations and other races will find it sagacious and that God wants all to be use proves that God would be evil if he didnít want all to accept its code of ethics. The Law is for enforcing morality for it canít very well enforce immorality can it?
Civil law decrees that nobody has the right to command murder for murder is a great and intolerable wrong. Jesus, repeating what God decreed through Moses, said that the greatest commandment was not the one to avoid murder. The greatest commandment was the one to love God alone and do it with all your heart and soul and mind. So nobody has the right to say there is no God or to criticise this commandment of absolute love for God meaning the law should not tolerate it. The Law of Moses was perfectly logical in trying to set up a religious dictatorship in which religion and civil law were fused. This commandment was the reason why Mosesí law ruled Palestine and to say Godís law today should not control the state is to oppose the commandment. God says that all people whatever their race have a duty to love him alone so the Law is for all. To stone a homosexual to death is to love God alone and that is what he wants. When God wanted that done to Israelite homosexuals he would have wanted it done to pagan ones too for they were worse and had gay sex in honour of false gods.
The Jews were wandering through different territories and different legal jurisdictions for they were a wandering people at the time God made the law of executing killers, homosexuals, adulterers and witches and indeed the whole Law. This means the Law of killing has to be obeyed no matter what the civil jurisdictions think. It means that the Law is to be obeyed even if the state forbids it. This shows that other civil jurisdictions were regarded as contemptible. God wants people to have law so it follows he wanted them to have the Jewish law only.
Look at the following argument. ďRevelation 13 has the antichrist ruling the world one day. The doctrine of Armageddon infers that the world will be run by people who hate God and who oppose his people. Armageddon is the final battle between good and evil on earth and implies that evil has taken over and seeks to finally eradicate good at Armageddon. Both suggest that Christians are not to try and take over the world (page 45, Whatever Happened to Heaven?).Ē
This is crazy because God could want Christians to try even if the Antichrist will be the winner. The Antichrist will try to destroy the faith and the Christians donít see that as a reason for sitting back and letting things take their course.
Jesus Christ and John Calvin argued that the ten commandments, in the Law of God, say more than they seem and they all advocate love. Both men taught that love was the essence of the Law of God. Jesus said that you shall not murder meant you shall not be angry with your brother. That is like murder in your heart. Calvin said that the commandment is equal to love your neighbour as yourself. It is just another way of saying this. Jesus doubtlessly would have agreed (page 81, GOD A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003). Calvin argued that the first commandment which says not to worship anything but God and not to bow down before images of God means that God is to be adored and loved and trusted and thanked and that we must not think we can represent God adequately in our imagination or by using images. To bow down before an image of God is paying homage to an inadequate picture of him. It is honouring the perception you have of God and not God himself and is the sin of idolatry. The New Testament makes it clear that Christians should obey the commandments and love their neighbour. Clearly the commandments are for the whole world. The other commandments of the Law that are not in the ten commandments are endorsed in the ten commandments for the other commandments decree how God is to be worshipped and served. So the ten commandments by implication require the whole Jewish law to be kept by the whole world.

Calvin claimed that the commandment to keep the sabbath day which is in the ten commandments means not so much keep one day a week for rest and worship but to worship and rest in the Lord all the time, every day (GOD A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003). By rest, Calvin does not mean sitting around doing nothing leaving it all for God to do. He means that we work for God yes but believing it is all his work and we are doing nothing. It is God working in and through us. The first commandment that we must adore God alone and trust him alone takes care of Calvin's point. He stretched the interpretation of the Sabbath commandment too far. God wants one day kept for literal rest and for literal worship. God certainly demands that he be worshipped all the time not just on the Sabbath and we can worship God while washing the floor. So the command to keep the Sabbath day certainly indicates a duty to attend public worship.
The Bible has it that the Mosiac Law is valid today and needs to be obeyed by everyone. It might be added that the Law is brutal and declares that religious faith comes before all. If you hope it at least makes the Law optional you need to discard that hope. It is obligatory and even if it were optional that would mean the Churches have to let people stone "sinners" to death in accordance with the Law.

Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, undated
Christ and Violence, Ronald J Sider, Herald Press, Scottdale, Ontario, 1979
Christís Literal Reign on Earth From Davidís 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
Godís 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
Kennedyís 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 Parkerís 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

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 canít 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. Paulís word for the Law backs this dismissal up.

Then the site suggests the correctness of the shocking statement of the theologian Geisler that all Godís laws must be in accord with Godís 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 isnít necessitated by Godís 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 donít 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 doesnít 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 donít. The fanaticism is still there.