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." is interesting.

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! 


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.

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.

Those who want the law of Moses to be no longer in force need to remember that the New Testament makes it clear that it is relevant. The law is as relevant as ever. It can be cancelled and we can still learn from it when the principles behind it are still valid. That is no comfort for those who want to ignore its ban on gay sex.

No Copyright