continued from my last post…
In the same FB post, Robert informed us that the “judicial laws in the Law of Moses (though stricter) are represented by the judicial laws of a nation today” and quoted Romans 13:1-5 as his “proof”.
Really?? Let’s take a look:
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
Not sure what Bible version was he using, but no matter how I read, I just cannot see where in the passage does it show that “the Law of Moses are represented by the judicial laws of a nation today”.
A plain reading of the text (a pet phrase of Robert) tells me that Paul was talking about submission to government or authority, even if it is not a “Godly” regime.
This is illustrated most clearly in Matthew 22:21 when Jesus told the Pharisees to “render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (tax), and to God the things that are God’s.“… and does anyone seriously think the Roman laws were in line with God’s “judicial laws”?
Peter also spoke about this in 1 Peter:
Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.
(1 Peter 2:13-14)
In any case, the passage is not talking about whatever Robert think it is. Period.
*If you would notice, Robert likes to bait and switch. In his other posts, he would insist the Law of Moses means the Book of the Law (written by Moses), and not the 10 Commandments. But over here, he said the “judicial laws”, which is the 10 Commandments (according to him), was contained in the Law of Moses (check out his words in quotations in the first paragraph)! So are they 2 separate things or are they the same? Hmm…*
Lastly, he wrote about the context of James 2 where the famous “break one (law), you break all (laws)” verse came from.
My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the poor man, “You stand there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool,” have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?…
… If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
Robert wrote, “When James said “break one break all”, there is a specific context. He was not telling believers to shun the 10 commandments, but rather he was telling hypocritical Hebrew believers who claimed to be walking in God’s law of love and yet showed partially between the rich and poor that they cannot choose to keep one and forsake the rest. If they keep one but break another, they have broken all.”
Eh… and so? Isn’t it as good as not saying anything? Under what other context can we break one but not break all?
And who says anything about shunning the 10 Commandments? James, while without intending to, had told us just how impossible it is for humans to keep the Law… and thus the need for grace.