Government's Role

[m231134]

I have a friend who follows everything of the old testament unless he can specifically identify a new testament teaching that overrides it. This sounds good expect he is Protestant who picks and chooses the verses to apply. In particular, he has indicated that Jesus taught mercy and forgiveness for us to apply to our neighbor individually, but that Jesus never changed the “governments” responsibility to the old testament law, in essence, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, in order to rid wickedness from society, which is the governments responsibility. How can I refute this with the Bible?

 

[po18guy]

Ask him if he follows Mosaic law, since Jesus taught the cleaned lepers to show themselves to the priest and make the offering which Moses prescribed. If he doesn’t, does that not make him a hypocrite?

 

[Vince1022]

I have a friend who follows everything of the old testament unless he can specifically identify a new testament teaching that overrides it. This sounds good expect he is Protestant who picks and chooses the verses to apply. In particular, he has indicated that Jesus taught mercy and forgiveness for us to apply to our neighbor individually, but that Jesus never changed the “governments” responsibility to the old testament law, in essence, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, in order to rid wickedness from society, which is the governments responsibility. How can I refute this with the Bible?

You can’t. He’s prioritizing the “government” over Christian teaching, it seems.

When Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s (e.g. Mark 12:17 et. al.) ask your friend…what belongs to Caesar that does not belong to God?

 

[m231134]

Ask him if he follows Mosaic law, since Jesus taught the cleaned lepers to show themselves to the priest and make the offering which Moses prescribed. If he doesn’t, does that not make him a hypocrite?

I found this Catholic Answers article by Jimmy Akins which talks to the point of the Mosaic Law itself not being binding, but only the Natural Law that it represents. This also goes into the aspect of my friend seeing the civil law as still being binding.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010bt.asp

This explains the concept which a Catholic could follow, but I am not so sure about my friend. I wanted to understand better what point was being made with respect to the following paragraph found below. I read the passages, and more around the verses specified, but don’t understand how specifically these people are shown not be under the Mosaic Law…

From the article by Jimmy Akin
“There has been a misimpression on the part of many that in some sense all men were bound to obey the Old Law before the time of Christ. This is not the case. The Law of Moses was always and only meant to be observed by the Jewish people. We see in the Old Testament many non-Jews who were worshipers of the true God, such as Melchizedek the Jebusite and Jethro the Midianite, who were both priests of God (Ex. 3:1, 18:12), Balaam the Pethorite, who was a prophet of God (Num. 22:18–19), and Naaman the Syrian, who came to worship God and was in no way asked to embrace the Mosaic Law (2 Kgs. 5:15–19).”

Help better understanding this concept an being able to convey it to someone else would be greatly appreciated.

 

[m231134]

You can’t. He’s prioritizing the “government” over Christian teaching, it seems.

When Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s (e.g. Mark 12:17 et. al.) ask your friend…what belongs to Caesar that does not belong to God?

I think that he would say that God defined how the civil authority was to act through the Mosaic Law, and since this has never been specifically changes by the New Testament, it is still in effect.

By the way, I did find an article by Jimmy Akin which addresses these ideas at - catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010bt.asp, but still do not understand parts - see reply to other post for details, as I still could use some advice.

Thanks.

 

[po18guy]

This explains the concept which a Catholic could follow, but I am not so sure about my friend. I wanted to understand better what point was being made with respect to the following paragraph found below. I read the passages, and more around the verses specified, but don’t understand how specifically these people are shown not be under the Mosaic Law.

Saint Paul write that where there is no law, there is no sin. For the law to apply, one would have to be under the Mosaic covenant.

Your friend is privately interpreting scripture, or listening to someone who is, so they are being blown around by the wind - not the Spirit.

Have a catechism? For $8, it will explain most, if not all, that you are seeking.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I have a friend who follows everything of the old testament unless he can specifically identify a new testament teaching that overrides it. This sounds good expect he is Protestant who picks and chooses the verses to apply. In particular, he has indicated that Jesus taught mercy and forgiveness for us to apply to our neighbor individually, but that Jesus never changed the “governments” responsibility to the old testament law, in essence, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, in order to rid wickedness from society, which is the governments responsibility. How can I refute this with the Bible?

I would have him read the Letter to the Galatians and then explain how what he’s doing fits in.

 

[Vince1022]

I think that he would say that God defined how the civil authority was to act through the Mosaic Law, and since this has never been specifically changes by the New Testament, it is still in effect.

Christ fulfilled the Law. So, in that sense,the Mosaic Law was indeed “changed.”

Clearly Christians don’t follow the Mosaic law as the people of the Old Testament times did. You say he’s a Protestant, then does he observe the Sabbath (Saturday) in accordance with Mosaic Law? Or does he worship on Sundays, as Christians do?

 

[m231134]

Christ fulfilled the Law. So, in that sense,the Mosaic Law was indeed “changed.”

Clearly Christians don’t follow the Mosaic law as the people of the Old Testament times did. You say he’s a Protestant, then does he observe the Sabbath (Saturday) in accordance with Mosaic Law? Or does he worship on Sundays, as Christians do?

He follows the Sabbath, which is my point, as this was not “specifically” changed in the bible. I have the resources to dispute this though.

The Jimmy Akins article, catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010bt.asp, talks about some non-Jewish priests in the bible.

From the article by Jimmy Akin
“There has been a misimpression on the part of many that in some sense all men were bound to obey the Old Law before the time of Christ. This is not the case. The Law of Moses was always and only meant to be observed by the Jewish people. We see in the Old Testament many non-Jews who were worshipers of the true God, such as Melchizedek the Jebusite and Jethro the Midianite, who were both priests of God (Ex. 3:1, 18:12), Balaam the Pethorite, who was a prophet of God (Num. 22:18–19), and Naaman the Syrian, who came to worship God and was in no way asked to embrace the Mosaic Law (2 Kgs. 5:15–19).”

I think that if I can these people did not follow the Mosaic law, it would strengthen the argument that the Mosaic law only applied to the Jews. I read about these people Jimmy mentions in the bible, but find no hard evidence that they did not follow the Mosaic Law. It seems that he is only saying that since they are identified as being of non-Jewish origin, they did not follow the Mosaic Law.

I am trying to determine if I am missing something, as my understanding of the Mosaic Law is not very complete.

 

[DPMartin]

He follows the Sabbath, which is my point, as this was not “specifically” changed in the bible. I have the resources to dispute this though.

The Jimmy Akins article, catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010bt.asp, talks about some non-Jewish priests in the bible.

From the article by Jimmy Akin
“There has been a misimpression on the part of many that in some sense all men were bound to obey the Old Law before the time of Christ. This is not the case. The Law of Moses was always and only meant to be observed by the Jewish people. We see in the Old Testament many non-Jews who were worshipers of the true God, such as Melchizedek the Jebusite and Jethro the Midianite, who were both priests of God (Ex. 3:1, 18:12), Balaam the Pethorite, who was a prophet of God (Num. 22:18–19), and Naaman the Syrian, who came to worship God and was in no way asked to embrace the Mosaic Law (2 Kgs. 5:15–19).”

I think that if I can these people did not follow the Mosaic law, it would strengthen the argument that the Mosaic law only applied to the Jews. I read about these people Jimmy mentions in the bible, but find no hard evidence that they did not follow the Mosaic Law. It seems that he is only saying that since they are identified as being of non-Jewish origin, they did not follow the Mosaic Law.

I am trying to determine if I am missing something, as my understanding of the Mosaic Law is not very complete.

Who created Heaven and Earth, who made the rules and fulfilled the rules that are fulfilled to who’s satisfaction, and no one else? No one else did it But God Himself.

So who can fulfill the Law given by the Lord God , by the hand of Moses?

Therefore if the man sees that the Law guides him in the Way of the Lord, why is this an issue? But if the man sees that the Law is his way to judge others by, or the world around him by, he is a fool, for he has not the ability, of himself, to fulfill it to the satisfaction of the Father. And has no respect to the only fulfillment to the Father’s satisfaction in His Son Jesus Christ. Therefore he has no right to judge, nor requier of others according to the Law.

One is (hopefully) not going to start slaughtering sheep, but if you read Leviticus in the Spirit of the Law one can know and understand God’s Wisdom in what He taught through this practice.

The Law isn’t made null and void by Jesus, it is fulfilled in Jesus that we may receive Mercy and Grace.

 

[Vince1022]

He follows the Sabbath, which is my point, as this was not “specifically” changed in the bible. I have the resources to dispute this though.

But Christ (and his disciples) violated the Sabbath, according to Mark 2:23-27 (just one example). Right?

The Jimmy Akins article, catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010bt.asp, talks about some non-Jewish priests in the bible.

Yes, but those references are to the Old Testament. Nor really applicable.

From the article by Jimmy Akin
“There has been a misimpression on the part of many that in some sense all men were bound to obey the Old Law before the time of Christ. This is not the case. The Law of Moses was always and only meant to be observed by the Jewish people. We see in the Old Testament many non-Jews who were worshipers of the true God, such as Melchizedek the Jebusite and Jethro the Midianite, who were both priests of God (Ex. 3:1, 18:12), Balaam the Pethorite, who was a prophet of God (Num. 22:18–19), and Naaman the Syrian, who came to worship God and was in no way asked to embrace the Mosaic Law (2 Kgs. 5:15–19).”

So, he would agree that not all of God’s people were obliged to follow the 10 Commandments? So, Christians are not obliged to follow the 10 commandments? Specifically, the one about Sabbath? I don’t know anything about him, or why you are quoting him, but with respect to this thread, is that right? This is new to me, I’d appreciate any help. Thanks!

 

[DPMartin]

But Christ (and his disciples) violated the Sabbath, according to Mark 2:23-27 (just one example). Right?

Yes, but those references are to the Old Testament. Nor really applicable.

So, he would agree that not all of God’s people were obliged to follow the 10 Commandments? So, Christians are not obliged to follow the 10 commandments? Specifically, the one about Sabbath? I don’t know anything about him, or why you are quoting him, but with respect to this thread, is that right? This is new to me, I’d appreciate any help. Thanks!

Vince

Since Jesus Christ is applicable, and Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and the Prophets according to the Will of the Father to the Satisfaction of the Father. Then how could the OT not be applicable? It is God’s Grace through His Son Jesus in that you are not able to fulfill as Jesus has done, but to disregard what Jesus has fulfill for you, as not applicable to you. Would be very unwise.

The Word of God doesn’t change, it is fulfilled, which is the whole purpose of creation.

 

[m231134]

But Christ (and his disciples) violated the Sabbath, according to Mark 2:23-27 (just one example). Right?

Yes, but those references are to the Old Testament. Nor really applicable.

So, he would agree that not all of God’s people were obliged to follow the 10 Commandments? So, Christians are not obliged to follow the 10 commandments? Specifically, the one about Sabbath? I don’t know anything about him, or why you are quoting him, but with respect to this thread, is that right? This is new to me, I’d appreciate any help. Thanks!

I would like to start out saying that although I agree with all of what has been stated in this thread, and it all applies, much of it will not influence my friend. In my experience with him, one has to show inconsistencies with his beliefs from the Bible, before he will even consider other arguments. We all agree that reading the Bible, one can come up with many different interpretations, so why would he consider mine (without believing in the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the teachings of the Catholic Church) to be any better than his ideas about the Scriptures.

To answer your questions about the 10 commandments, I am not sure how he would view them. I think he would see them representing a higher order (such as was stated earlier as them representing the Natural Law), and for that reason may separate out the 10 Commandments from the rest of the Mosaic Law. In this way, 10 Commandments are still standing with the methods we use to fulfill them changing. But it is interesting that the Sabbath day Commandment is the only one that we do not continue to follow as specifically stated in the Bible. So he has some logic on his side of the argument.

Also a note to remember is my initial comments had to do with civil components of the Mosaic Law, as he believes that the government, if following God’s Law, would be stoning people for adultery, and claims that the reason the she was not stoned was because they were under Roman Law and the Jews were restricted from following through with their laws. This obviously it putting the Roman Law above that of God’s, so there is a little inconsistency in that point.

Any other suggestions as to the civil Mosaic Law angle?

Although the obvious place to start is Colossians 2:12-17, but actually only deals with the ceremonial and moral, not specifically the civil part of the Mosaic Law. I probably will have to start with the Sabbath

By the way, Jimmy Akins is associated with Catholic Answers, which is why I am quoting his article.

 

[Vince1022]

Vince

Since Jesus Christ is applicable, and Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and the Prophets according to the Will of the Father to the Satisfaction of the Father. Then how could the OT not be applicable?

I said the reference in the post I was responding to was not applicable. I did not say, simply, that the Old Testament is not applicable. Read the post I responded to, then my response. The point being discussed, to my understanding, was following Mosaic law. The link provided in the post I responded to dealt only with Old Testament references, so I responded that of course Old Testament references would agree with following the Mosaic law. That’s why it’s not helpful when considering Christian responses. Does that help?

The Word of God doesn’t change, it is fulfilled, which is the whole purpose of creation.

The Word of God (Jesus) does not change, right. The Word of God (Bible) does not change. But the Church’s understanding and interpretation of what Jesus taught and what Scripture teaches often does.

 

[Vince1022]

I would like to start out saying that although I agree with all of what has been stated in this thread, and it all applies, much of it will not influence my friend. In my experience with him, one has to show inconsistencies with his beliefs from the Bible, before he will even consider other arguments. We all agree that reading the Bible, one can come up with many different interpretations, so why would he consider mine (without believing in the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the teachings of the Catholic Church) to be any better than his ideas about the Scriptures.

To answer your questions about the 10 commandments, I am not sure how he would view them. I think he would see them representing a higher order (such as was stated earlier as them representing the Natural Law), and for that reason may separate out the 10 Commandments from the rest of the Mosaic Law. In this way, 10 Commandments are still standing with the methods we use to fulfill them changing. But it is interesting that the Sabbath day Commandment is the only one that we do not continue to follow as specifically stated in the Bible. So he has some logic on his side of the argument.

Also a note to remember is my initial comments had to do with civil components of the Mosaic Law, as he believes that the government, if following God’s Law, would be stoning people for adultery, and claims that the reason the she was not stoned was because they were under Roman Law and the Jews were restricted from following through with their laws. This obviously it putting the Roman Law above that of God’s, so there is a little inconsistency in that point.

Any other suggestions as to the civil Mosaic Law angle?

Although the obvious place to start is Colossians 2:12-17, but actually only deals with the ceremonial and moral, not specifically the civil part of the Mosaic Law. I probably will have to start with the Sabbath

By the way, Jimmy Akins is associated with Catholic Answers, which is why I am quoting his article.

Well, if he’s a Protestant, I don’t understand why he would prioritize the Old Testament over the New. Or any Old Testament laws over Jesus Christ.

As Jesus taught in Matthew 5:17, He came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

In other words, Christians follow Christ, not the Law, fundamentally.

And, indeed, Catholics don’t interpret Christ by the Bible, but rather the reverse: our understanding of the Bible is based on our understanding of Christ. Our faith is in God. As we profess in the Creeds.

I don’t know if that helps. Good luck.