Wednesday, June 28, 2017

A Definitive Look at the James White and Yasir Qadhi Controversy




By Keith Thompson

In January, 2017 Christian apologist James White invited Muslim leader Yasir Qadhi to have an inter-faith dialogue meeting at Grace Church in Memphis, TN. White has come under attack for this event for many reasons including: (1) Allowing Qadhi to justify Islam by lying and misleading Christians with demonstrably incorrect claims all unchallenged; (2) Endorsing Qadhi’s dishonest portrait and promotion of “true” Islam as being peaceful even though it is not, and even though Qadhi has recently endorsed, buddied up with and defended terrorists, and even though Qadhi is a member of numerous terrorist and Muslim Brotherhood front groups (as the Holy Land Foundation Trial proves); (3) Having an inter-faith meeting in a church in front of Christians which is unbiblical; (4) Allying with a wicked leader of a false religion like Qadhi which is unbiblical (e.g. calling Qadhi his “mentor,” saying he has a “kindred spirit” with Qadhi, wanting to unite with Qadhi and Muslims against secularism, saying he is honored by Qadhi’s presence, and "fellowshiping" with Qadhi and Muslims as the event banner advertised, etc). In this article I will explain the reasons why these criticisms of White are valid.

Below is the video of the event and throughout this article I will provide time-stamp references whenever I quote or allude to statements of White and Qadhi from it (e.g. “05:11”, etc).


White allowed Qadhi to justify Islam by lying to and misleading Christians with demonstrably incorrect claims all unchallenged.

Much of this dialogue consisted of White just sitting back and allowing Qadhi to lie to the Christian people in his justification and promotion of Islam. White did not challenge these lies but just allowed the saints to be misled.

For example, at 22:53 Qadhi said “There is only one Quran. There are no variant versions. There is one standard copy of the Quran across the Muslim world.” And at 23:59 he said “Really there’s not been any variant versions of the Quran.” Yet, this is an unchallenged lie. Arthur Jeffrey’s works The Qur’an as Scripture and Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an demonstrated prior to the 1924 standard Cairo edition of the Quran being embraced by Muslims, there were variant Qurans. Muhammad’s own companions had different Quranic codices which disagreed with each other and with the 1924 edition now in use. These codices had thousands of meaningful variants among themselves. Some were missing entire surahs. Some had extra surahs. Uthman had to burn variant copies of the Quran and allegedly produced a standardized version. What is more, in Sahih Muslim we read that the best reciters of the Quran in Basra used to recite a surah of the Quran which they forgot, except for one verse they report. Yet, the verse they report is not in the Quran today (Sahih Muslim, Book 5, Hadith 2286). 

Another lie Qadhi was allowed to get away with is at 32:13 where he said “Historically speaking there’s been a spectrum of acceptable interpretation and these are the main schools of Islamic law. There’s never been any type of sectarian warfare between these schools of Islamic law.” However, as professor of Middle Eastern studies Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle notes,

“disagreements often resulted in heated argument and sometimes degenerated into violence as jurists championed their legal school against others. The Hanbalis reverted to the mob to enforce ideas of orthodoxy. As riots based on legal school partisanship rocked Baghdad, some jurists dissented” (Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle, Homosexuality in Islam, (Oneworld Publications, 2010).

Qadhi was allowed to lie and claim at 01:04:43 “ISIS at max has 15-20,000 people.” The problem is recently the United States special operations chief affirmed 60,000 ISIS fighters have been killed by the US and its allies (www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/15/special-ops-chief-us-troops-have-killed-60000-isis-militants-past-two-years.html). Moreover, even back in 2014 the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights declared ISIS had around 100,000 members (www.military.com/daily-news/2017/02/14/specops-commander-60000-isis-fighters-killed-by-us-troops.html). To White’s credit he did play “devil’s advocate” and stated perhaps Muslims around the world support ISIS but just do not become fighters. In response Qadhi then obfuscated a Pew poll on the matter unchallenged claiming at 01:06:13 “The IS Pew which is a think-tank in Washington has done a very exhaustive survey in twenty Muslim countries. And they have demonstrated, this is a three year long survey, that the position the Muslim world has on almost all issues of violence is similar if not less than in the Western world.” The problem is that Pew poll actually showed at least 63 million (maybe even 287 million) Muslims in just eleven countries support ISIS (www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/pew_poll_between_63_million_and_287_million_isis_supporters_in_just_11_countries.html). Also, an Arabic al-Jazeera poll revealed 81% of the respondents support ISIS - that is over 61,000 people (www.express.co.uk/news/world/580221/Islamic-State-support-Arab-world-poll-finds). Moreover, a Clarion Project poll study revealed 42 million people in the Arab world alone support ISIS (clarionproject.org/isis-has-least-42-million-supporters-arab-world/). The erroneous 15-20,000 statistic White allowed Qadhi to mislead people with was just a leftist number which came from the pro-Islamic Obama administration. The fact is even in 2015 news agencies reported at least 30,000 foreign Muslims from around the world travelled to Syria to join ISIS since 2011 (www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3252265/30-000-foreign-fighters-including-250-Americans-poured-Iraq-Syria-join-ISIS-2011-intelligence-fears.html).

At 01:07:29 Qadhi said,  “The very fact we have never seen in our fourteen and one half centuries a cult like ISIS, we’ve never seen anything like this, is demonstrative of the fact that this is not typical.” The problem is there have been many caliphates in history starting with Muhammad, and they have looked very similar to ISIS. The books of Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer, and the videos of myself and The Masked Arab (www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk_VwZxN9bA;www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mSLSzugDfw&list=PLKurjH_dbSTJiajkF74qvqwcOML6PS0Ty) demonstrate this. For instance, like ISIS the caliphates of history also had sex slaves, murdered women and children, murdered Muslims who were deemed heretics or apostates, engaged in mass-murder (beheadings), had child soldiers, cut off peoples’ hands and feet, crucified people, executed homosexuals, executed family members who were heretics or apostates, raped captive women, destroyed monuments and shrines, engaged in offensive warfare against unbelievers to spread Islam, engaged in terror attacks, and burned people alive, etc.

Qadhi went on to lie at 01:09:18 saying, “Iraq and Syria had no radical and jihadist tendencies twenty years ago, thirty years ago, seventy years ago, one-hundred years ago. . . Iraq had never seen a suicide bombing in its 1500 year existence in Islamic history until the 2004 American invasion.” However, Iraq and Syria have had a long history of jihadi and terrorist tendencies prior to the 2004 US invasion of Iraq. In Aleppo, Syria in the year 1947 Muslims rioted murdering 75 Jews and injuring hundreds. In Damascus, Syria in the year 1949 12 Jews were murdered by Muslims and dozens more were injured in the Menarsha synagogue attack. In 1973 Muslims in Iraq hijacked KLM Flight 861. In 1980 five terrorists from the Iraqi-backed Arab-Liberation Front entered the kibbutz nursery in Misgav Am in Israel murdering the secretary, an infant and then holding the rest of the infants hostage. In 1986 in Syria some pro-Iraqi militants used a truck bomb to murder 60 people. That same year in Damascus, Syria car bombs from pro-Iraqi militants murdered 144 people. I could go on and on. For White to allow Qadhi to blame Muslim terrorism on America is reprehensible.

At 01:37:40 Qadhi pretends caliphates have never burned non-Muslims alive: “We have never seen anything like ISIS in our history. And I’m a theologian and a historian of my tradition. This is the first time something as crazy, I mean burning people alive in cages?” Yet, the earliest biographer of Muhammad Ibn Isaq and the primitive Islamic historian al-Tabari both tell us Muhammad had his followers light a man named Kinana on fire until he was near death, after which he was beheaded. Moreover, as Spencer pointed out,

“What about the followers of Tulayha ibn Khuwaylid ibn Nawfal al-Asad, who left Islam and proclaimed himself a prophet? They were burned alive during the Wars of Apostasy in the early 630s. What about the eleven Catholic monks who were burned alive for proselytizing among Muslims in North Africa in 1272? In the 1590s, the English traveler Fynes Moryson noted that Muslims burned apostates and blasphemers alive. . . A later traveler, John Braithwaite, wrote in the 1720s that apostates were burned alive. . . . In Morocco in 1792, 50 Jews were burned alive for refusing to convert to Islam. And on and on and on. There are so many examples of this as to place the Islamic State’s burnings squarely within Islamic tradition. But White just sits there and lets Qadhi lie. Yes, it’s a discussion, not a debate, but does this mean that Qadhi is just allowed to lie with impunity?” (www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/christian-minister-james-white-has-kindred-spirit-in-jihadi-imam-yasir-qadhi).

Qadhi also lied about Surah 9:5 of the Quran. At 01:39:19 he said, “Muslims have never interpreted the verse ‘Kill them wherever you find them (Quran 9:5)’ as meaning go and kill infidels wherever you are.” And at 01:41:37 he said, “Not a single person has ever been killed because of this verse (Quran 9:5) in Islamic history.” Quran 9:5 says, “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful” (Quran 9:5). The problem is in sahih ahadith Muslims are commanded to accept, Muhammad interpreted Quran 9:5 as a universal final marching order aimed at getting all pagan unbelievers to convert or die. In the following hadith, Surah 9:5 is first quoted and then interpreted by Muhammad:

“(The Statement of Allah) ‘But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) [prayers] and give Zakat then leave their way free.’ Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Messenger said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah’” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 2, Hadith 25). 

Notice Muhammad’s interpretation is that he was commanded to “fight against people” until they convert. Contra Qadhi, 9:5 is to then be seen as a basis for murdering unbelievers wherever Muslims find them if they refuse to become Muslim once a caliph declares offensive jihad.

What is more, Qadhi lies when he says 9:5 has never been carried out against unbelievers in Islamic history. For, even Muhammad and his early caliph successors carried this text out by attacking pagans forcing them to either convert to Islam or die. For example, in A.D. 630 Muhammad sent al-Dahak ibn Sufyan to lead a Muslim force to al-Zuji to command the people of the Banu Kilab tribe to embrace Islam or die. Al-Waqidi reported, “The messenger of God sent an army to al-Qurata. . . . they met them in Zujj. They invited them to Islam but they refused. So they fought them and defeated them” (Al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi, [Routledge, 2011], p. 481). Ibn Sa’d confirmed the same thing, “They . . . invited them to embrace Islam. They refused, so they attacked them. . .” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al-tabaqat Al-kabir, Vol. 2, [Kitab Bhavan, 2009], p. 201). 

In A.D. 631 over a dozen men of the Banu Azd clan led by Surad ibn Abdullah became new converts to Islam. Muhammad’s response was to order them to attack their non-Muslim neighbouring tribes i.e., the people of Jurash in Yemen. Ibn Sa'd notes, “He (Surad) invited them [the neighbouring tribes] to embrace Islam but they declined” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al-tabaqat Al-kabir, Vol. 1, [Kitab Bhavan, 2009], p. 398). The historian al-Tabari notes the Muslim Surad therefore “inflicted a heavy loss on them” (History of al-Tabari, Vol. 9, [State University of New York Press, 1990], p. 88). 

In A.D. 632 Muhammad sent Jarir ibn Abdullah al-Bajali on an offensive expedition to destroy the Dhul Khalasa which was a religious temple of Yemenite pagans. The temple was destroyed and the pagans who attempted to defend it were murdered (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 64; Hisham Al-Kalbi, The Book of Idols, pp. 31-32). 

At 01:06:46 we were told:

“Qadhi: Sharia has become a boogieman. Muslims by definition support Sharia. But what is Sharia? It’s like asking a Christian ‘do you believe in Jesus?’ White: It’s like asking a Christian ‘do you believe God’s law is good?’ Uhh yeah I think so. Qadhi: For me Sharia is being good to my parents. It’s giving to the poor. So what do you mean by ‘Sharia’? It’s become a boogieman. It’s become this vicious understanding that is alien to the mainstream Muslim world.”

But of course, Sharia is viscous and violent according to all four Sunni schools of Islamic law (the mainstream), as well as the Shia ones. It is not just “being good to parents and giving to the poor.” That is a very deceptive portrait of it. When one reads authoritative Islamic law manuals from the different schools of law and see what they say about Sharia, we read about the following kinds of things: Under Sharia Muslims are to make war on unbelieving towns and cities to spread Islam forcing Jews and Christians who refuse to become Muslim to either be murdered or to pay a crippling and humiliating tax (jizya) once their town or city has been conquered and subjugated. Christians and Jews who agree to subjugation and jizya to save their lives are not allowed to repair their churches or synagogues. There is death for those who insult, or just speak honestly about, Islam or Muhammad. Christians are not allowed to evangelize or openly practice shirk (e.g. proclaim that Jesus is God or that God is triune) and so that does away with freedom of speech and expression. Under Sharia women are beaten, women’s testimony is half that of a man, and there is female genital mutilation, etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Sharia.

In sum Qadhi was allowed to get away with dozens of demonstrably false claims and outright lies and deceptions. White just sat back nodding his head and allowing the Christian people be deceived all in an effort to justify and promote Islam as something other than what it truly is.

White endorsed Qadhi’s deceptive portrait and promotion of “true” Islam as being peaceful even though that portrait is factually inaccurate, and even though Qadhi has recently endorsed, buddied up with and defended terrorists, and is a member of numerous terrorist and Muslim Brotherhood front groups (as the Holy Land Foundation Trial proves).

The following comments from James White clearly demonstrate he is on board with the false idea “true” Islam is peaceful. In fact, they show he actually wants Qadhi to teach Christians the idea “true” Islam is peaceful when it is not. This is very odd given the fact that in White’s debate with Robert Spencer (www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBCWsabA5Y4), White claimed there is no “true” Islam, and that therefore we should not say “true” Islam is violent. Talk about inconsistency and confusion. The man talks out of both sides of his mouth:

03:13 “I want you to hear especially when he [Qadhi] talks about what Islam is and what it is not, and who speaks for Islam.”

01:03:19 “What you [Qadhi] need to do, my community needs to have someone with your ability to clearly present things, take what you’ve written about the Khawarijites and who speaks for Islam and produce an hour long YouTube video that we can understand, that would say ‘this is how you know what the true Islam is.”

09:28 “They [Christians] see pictures. They’re bombarded with images every single day. There’s been the truck and the Christmas thing in Germany I think it was. We got to understand: what is Islam? Right here in this area you [Qadhi] are one of the primary leaders of Islam. But there would be people who would say ‘you don’t really speak for Islam. ISIS is more consistent.’ Help us to start understanding.”

01:39:34 “This is Surah 9:29. That obviously is one of the key texts. Do you have a video, a lecture where you contextualize Surah 9 and you work through it?. . .  just as we have texts concerning the destruction of the Amorites, we have to look at the Bible and say there was a specific context here. . . What is the context of Surah 9 that contextualizes that and delegitimizes the utilization of al-Qaida and ISIS? ”

These comments indicate White bought into Qadhi’s apologetic and agrees with his claim that “true” Islam is peaceful. They also reveal White wants Christians to listen to and believe Qadhi’s defense of “true” Islam being peaceful. White is not merely interested in Christians learning different perspectives of Islam from Qadhi, but instead “what Islam is,” “what the true Islam is,” etc. This is very sick and twisted, since, as Spencer demonstrated in his debate with White, and as many excellent books demonstrate, Islam is inherently violent. All schools of Islamic law teach, based on Muhammad’s words and example, that Muslims are to make war on unbelievers to spread Islam.

What is really deceptive about all of this is that while White wants Christians to believe Qadhi when he says “true” Islam is peaceful, the fact is Qadhi actually knows Islam is not peaceful. He is just deceiving White and Christians. For, Qadhi has recently (even in 2016 and 2017) endorsed, buddied up with and defended convicted terrorists:

On October 23, 2016, Qadhi defended convicted American-born Taliban member John Walker Lindh, saying that by fighting for the terror group, all he was “primarily guilty of is youthful naïveté, not treason, and that he should be released.” Qadhi then went on to liken Lindh to American politician Rahm Emanuel — who volunteered for two weeks to help repair Israel Defense Forces (IDF) trucks during the 1991 Gulf War.

On July 14, 2014, Qadhi tweeted a petition supporting female Al-Qaeda operative Aafia Siddiqui, who was convicted of 86 years in jail for the attempted murder of a U.S. Army officer.

On October 9, 2008, Qadhi praised militant Ali al-Timimi, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for encouraging Muslim youth to fight for the Taliban and fight against the U.S. and India. Qadhi said of al-Timimi: “he played an instrumental role in shaping and directing me to take the path that has led me to where I am today…he was the first teacher who taught me the realities and intricacies of tawhid [God’s oneness] and aqidah [creed], which, to this day, remains my primary focus and speciality” (canarymission.org/professors/yasir-qadhi/).

In May of 2017 Qadhi invited people to hear Siraj Wahhaj speak at the Muslim school in Memphis where Yasir works. Wahhaj is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. He was also a defense witness for the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, at his trial. The Blink Sheikh was a leader of an Egyptian terrorist organization who was sentenced to life in prison for plotting terrorism. Wahaj has stated "Islam is better than democracy. Allah will cause his deen to prevail over every kind of system, and you know what? It will happen” (www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=716; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siraj_Wahhaj).

Moreover, Qadhi is a member of numerous Muslim Brotherhood front groups and terrorist organizations such as ICNA, CAIR, AMJA, the al-Maghrib Institute, and the Islamic Society of Boston (www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261733/muslim-who-apologized-cursing-jews-featured-terror-joe-kaufman; www.understandingthethreat.com/utt-throwback-thursday-are-you-still-listening-to-the-imam/). The al-Maghrib Institute has produced many terrorists/jihadists and The Islamic Society of Boston was founded by an al-Qaeda financier. We know the rest of the groups are Muslim Brotherhood fronts because the Holy Land Foundation trial revealed that official Muslim Brotherhood documents named them as such. So White is totally wrong when at 01:23 he said “Qadhi is a consistent Muslim. He believes what he says.”

This brings us to White’s defense of Qadhi. White claims we can trust Qadhi when he teaches “true” Islam is peaceful because ISIS has threatened Qadhi’s life for standing against them and their violent ways. White said:

57:05 “Many people are told Muslim representatives are supposed to say these things. They’re engaging in Taqiyya. They’re giving you a story that’s not really true. I can not tell you how many people look at me and say ‘you just can’t believe what these people are saying.’”

59:00 “ISIS twice printed Dr. Qadhi’s picture and called for his assassination.”

But as Spencer pointed out in his debate with White, just because Qadhi opposes ISIS (and vice versa) does not mean Qadhi is opposed in principle to jihad warfare. The Muslim Brotherhood Qadhi is tied to is a rival of ISIS. It also wants a caliphate and all the violence Islam and Sharia brings. Its just the Muslim Brotherhood does not want ISIS to lead the caliphate. They want to lead it themselves. So just because Qadhi has denounced ISIS does not mean he personally rejects caliphate, warfare against unbelievers to spread Islam, subjugation, and all the violence and cruelty of Sharia. These are all things the Muslim Brotherhood accepts. When one does even the smallest amount of research on the Muslim Brotherhood this becomes clear. In a retrieved document the Muslim Brotherhood stated their goal is “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house . . . so that it falls, and Allah’s religion is victorious over other religions” (www.investigativeproject.org/5807/explanatory-memorandum-detractors-ignore-evidence). Qadhi himself has preached jihad warfare against unbelievers and the seizing of their property in the context of a caliphate (freedomoutpost.com/tennessee-imam-abu-ammaar-yasir-qadhi-jews-christians-filthy-lives-property-can-taken-jihad-muslims/#ixzz2jD7UdMtc).

White having an inter-faith meeting in a church in front of Christians is unbiblical

The whole idea of having a deceptive terrorist-tied Muslim leader preach to saints in a church in a dialogue setting is unbiblical. White does not like the word “preach” here because Qadhi was not officially given the pulpit (no one said he was!) and it was not an actual church service. Qadhi did say at 01:35:35 “My job is to be as good a role model to you and preach to you as politely and as clearly as I can. And I’ve done my job.” When I say “preach” I am using the word in the sense that Qadhi did i.e., the act of proclaiming his religious views. Plus, it was in a church in front of saints of that church. And although the saints expected a discussion, they did not expect to be lied to over and over. So there is no defense of this. The biblical prohibition of this event is to be found in 2 John 1:9-11:

“9Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works” (2 John 1:9-11).

White objects to this argument since this text was originally about not letting proto-Gnostic Docetists into house churches to teach Christians. However, the errors of the Docetists which led John to forbid them from entering Christian house churches to teach are shared by Muslims. For instance, John condemns Docetists for denying the incarnation of Jesus (1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7). Muslims deny Jesus was incarnated. John chastised the Docetists for not “confessing Jesus is the Son of God” (1 John 4:15) since their Jesus only seemed or appeared human. Well Muslims explicitly say they do not believe Jesus is the Son of God. We learn from other writings Docetists and later Gnostics denied Jesus was crucified (they thought he was too holy to have an “evil” material body which was crucified). Muslims also deny Jesus was crucified. Even the exegete Robert W. Yarbrough affirms broader application makes perfectly fine sense: “An analogy today would be Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, or other missionaries who seek to spread quasi-Christian views” (Yarbrough, 1-3 John, 351). Although 2 John 1:9-11 was originally about Docetists, it can easily be applied to Muslims since they share many of the heresies of the Docetists. White and his followers have said that Docetists were Christian heretics though! Well, this is desperate since Muslims claim to believe in Jesus and yet they deviate from true christology and other vital doctrines. So in a sense Muslims are Christian heretics. This is why way back in the 8th century John of Damascus identified Islam as a Christian heresy. Islam is an apostasy from biblical truth. It accepts the Torah and the Gospel but then perverts it and ignores crucial parts. The fallacy of White and his followers is that here they use the “situational hermeneutic” liberal eisegetes have been utilizing for a long time. This method says we can not give biblical texts modern application. So that Jesus was “the way” only in the first century, but not today. Today there may be many ways, etc. (Thanks Robert Morey) With this hermeneutic we could never use the Bible to say Mormonism is a heresy, that Muhammad was a false prophet, etc. But White is inconsistent here. The Jehovah’s Witness apologist Greg Stafford said in his debate with White that the Old Testament texts saying there is only one God can only be applied to that time, so that now there may be many gods. Yet, White rightly objected to this and said we have to be able to apply the Bible to modern times, otherwise it would have to be rewritten for every modern situation (Thanks Sam Shamoun). Well, exactly! That is what White’s critics are saying about 2 John 1:9-11. In regard to not “greeting” such people (vv. 10-11), the text is not saying we can not say “hello.” A Christian greeting was more than that. It was “sometimes combined with a kiss . . . which express[es] mutual acceptance and affection on the basis of shared conviction regarding and commitment to the apostolic Christ” (Yarbrough, 1-3 John, 352). The celebration of Muslim and Christian “agreements” about Jesus and other theological matters and the affection displayed in that inter-faith event (e.g. "you honor us with your presence" and "fellowship" between Christians and Muslims being advertised in the official banner of the event) clearly violates the principle of not giving such people the Christian greeting.

Another reason the White/Qadhi inter-faith meeting was unbiblical is that Ephesians 5:11 says, “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Islam and Islamic preaching (especially involving blatant deception and lies) are fruitless deeds of darkness. Instead of entertaining and having much to do with such things, White should have just exposed them as good apologists do.

What is more, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 says,

14Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you” (2 Corinthians 6:14-17).

The verb ἑτεροζυγοῦντες (translated as “unequally yoked together”) only has one other metaphorical use in surrounding literature and it’s found in Plutarch (Cimon 16.10). In Plutarch the metaphorical use has the meaning of “ally” (Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 279 n. 5). It may also go back to Leviticus 19:19 where in the LXX it mentions “to yoke together” in the context of crossbreeding animals. Can White’s relationship with Qadhi be seen as this kind of alliance, etc? Yes, very easily (and we will argue this further below). Let’s keep looking at the text. Did White “partner” up with Qadhi? Yes. Did White “fellowship” with Qadhi and the Muslims? Yes. Even according to the invitation banner fellowship was part of the agenda. Did White make note of his “agreements” with Qadhi and the Muslims throughout the meeting? Yes. Was White being “separate” from Qadhi and going out from his midst? No, he brought Qadhi into the midst of the church to preach error. Now yes, there is historical context to this passage. But none of it negates the application to this inter-faith event. Again, we must not employ the liberal “situational hermeneutic.” What needs to be noted is evangelism and debate are one thing, but this inter-faith fellowship, alliance and partnership is another. The latter violates the biblical doctrine of separation. White literally violated almost every aspect of this text. 

Official banner of the event mentioning "fellowship" between Christians and Muslims.

Allying with a wicked leader of a false religion like Qadhi is unbiblical

Another text on not allying with wicked people is 2 Chronicles 20:35-37:

“35After this Jehoshaphat king of Judah allied himself with Ahaziah king of Israel. He acted wickedly in so doing. 36So he allied himself with him to make ships to go to Tarshish, and they made the ships in Ezion-geber. 37Then Eliezer the son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat saying, ‘Because you have allied yourself with Ahaziah, the LORD has destroyed your works.’ So the ships were broken and could not go to Tarshish” (2 Chronicles 20:35-37).

As is clear, both this text and 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 condemn making alliances with unbelievers and the like. Well, what is the evidence White made an unbiblical alliance with Qadhi? At 01:12 White said Qadhi has a “kindred spirit” with him. This is odd given the fact Qadhi has the spirit of antichrist for denying the Father and Son according to 1 John 2:22 (Islam explicitly denies Jesus’ Sonship and God’s spiritual fatherhood). The alliance can be further seen in White’s remark at 05:09: “Dr. Qadhi sir, you honor us with your presence.” Moreover, at 48:31 White called Qadhi his “mentor.” And at 01:02:40 White proposed an alliance between himself and Qadhi, and between Christians and Muslims against secularism: “In case you haven’t noticed, our culture is becoming much more secular. . . it’s coming everywhere. We all may be facing being a religious minority. How are we going to get along in that situation? Are we going to want someone to come alongside us? Then we need to extend the hand now.” Lastly, the banner again said part of the agenda was "fellowship" between Christians and Muslims. I will end with a quote from the Protestant divine John Brown of Haddington (thanks to Paul Flynn for this one):

"If therefore any preacher appears among you who does not declare and inculcate these very doctrines concerning Jesus Christ, and the redemption of sinners through his blood, according to the riches of God's grace, which we delivered unto you, see that ye give him not the smallest encouragement, by entertaining him in your houses, or wishing him any success in his ministrations; for whoever wishes him success, or familiarly converses with him, is accounted by God as a criminal encourager and assistant of him in spreading his errors, to the dishonour of Christ and the eternal ruining of men."

Conclusion

In sum it is clear White’s critics are correct. He is in serious error and compromise. But he is too prideful to repent and admit he did wrong. Instead he just attacks his critics on twitter, facebook and his radio show. His fanboys who view him as their idol also need to be rebuked. If in light of the evidence they still come to his aid and support his actions, that shows a major spiritual fog or blindness and spirit of idolatry is over them. Many Christians have prayed White either steps down or repents unto restoration never repeating this kind of serious error. His loss to Spencer in their debate should have humbled him. But so far it has not. I therefore pray God will either remove White from ministry or else grant him repentance.

The following links are from Christians, experts on Islam and other concerned onlookers critiquing this inter-faith event: 


- Pastor Andy Woods Says James White Brought A Wolf Before The Sheep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQQMVafw5mQ

- #263 The James White/Yasir Qadhi Controversy | (Megiddo Radio)

- James White Calls Jihadi Imam Mentor During Interfaith Dialogue (Part 1) (WVW)

- Shocking Video on James White & Islam (Student of Theology)

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Are Christians Under the Law of Moses?



By Keith Thompson


Various people falsely maintain Christians are obligated to keep the Law of Moses. Seventh Day Adventists for instance hold Christians are under the Sabbath and Ten Commandments. Theonomists or Reconstructionists believe Christians are under the “moral” and “civil” parts of the Mosaic Law, but not the “ceremonial.” Certain Protestants who hold to Covenant Theology maintain only the “moral” laws of Moses are in effect, while the “civil” and “ceremonial” are not. Catholics hold essentially the same view. Some Black Hebrew Israelite sects claim the Law of Moses is still in effect. And various renegade teachers out there assert Christians are bound to Mosaic Law as well.

In this essay I am going to defend the position that Christians are not under the Law of Moses but instead are under the Law of Christ found in the New Covenant scriptures. This position is part of New Covenant Theology. After my study into the matter I am persuaded it is indeed the biblical view. New Covenant Theology says the Old Covenant and Law of Moses (which are inseparable) have been fulfilled and made obsolete by Christ. Nothing in the Mosaic Law is to be observed unless Jesus and the Apostles ratified it in the New Covenant scriptures. Everything else has been abrogated and made obsolete. This is because Jesus fulfilled the Law through his life, death and resurrection and ushered in the New Covenant with its set of precepts or rules.

Much of the Old Testament Law was Only Meant for Ancient Israelites

In his masterful essay The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise David A. Dorsey convincingly demonstrated much of the Mosaic Law is simply not applicable to people who are not ancient Israelites.

He notes many laws were meant to “regulate the lives of people in the distinctive geographical and climatic conditions found in the southern Levant, and many of the regulations are inapplicable, unintelligible, or even nonsensical outside that regime.”(1) Here he mentions many laws such as the one in Exodus 29:22 regulating the offering of the ‘fat tail’ of the ram which only exists in a limited geographical location, the law in Exodus 23:11 regulating cultivation of the olive tree which is also rare geographically, etc.

He then notes many laws were “designed by God to regulate the lives of a people whose cultural milieu was that of the ancient Near East.”(2) Here he mentions many laws such as Deuteronomy 17:14-20’s regulations on the style of hereditary kingship practiced in the ancient Near East, Deuteronomy 20:19-20’s regulations on ancient Near Eastern siege practices, etc.

He then mentions many laws that only make sense in the context of the religious milieu of a person in the ancient Near East, or for a person in an actual politically – and geographically defined nation, or for a person in a cultic regime that has been discontinued by the Church.(3) So, when people today around the world claim they are under the Law of Moses, it is absurd.

The New Testament Teaches Christians are not Under the Law of Moses

According to the Law of Moses all Jews were required to pay a temple tax (Exodus 30:13-16). However, in Matthew 17:26 Jesus declared “the sons are free” from this temple tax, indicating the temporary nature of the Mosaic Law.

Moreover, Thomas Schreiner notes(4) instead of solely focusing on the commandments of the Law of Moses, which is what one would expect if the Mosaic Law was meant for Christians, Jesus instead often spoke of “my commandments” (John 14:15, 21; 15:10), “my commandment” (John 15:12), what “I command you” (John 15:14, 17) and “the new commandment that I give to you” (John 13:34), etc. This supports New Covenant Theology. Similar language is also present in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-35, 38-39, 43-44).

What is more, in John 1:16-17 we read, “16For from his fullness we have all received, grace for grace. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” (John 1:16-17). When verse 16 says the Jewish Christians were given “grace for grace” the Greek word “for” is the preposition anti which should be rendered as “instead of” or “in place of.” So when you take vv. 16-17 together what is being said is the grace found in Christ has been given “in the place” of the grace found in the Law of Moses. Hence, Christians are not under the Law of Moses.

In the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem the Apostles and Elders convened to settle the question of weather or not Gentile Christians need to be circumcised to be saved. Not only did the council conclude Gentile Christians do not need to be circumcised, but it also concluded they are not under the Law of Moses and that ancient Jews and modern Jewish Christians like the Apostles have not even been able to keep the Law of Moses:

“10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [the Gentiles] will’ . . . . 19Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.” (Acts 15:10-11, 19-20).

Notice in vv. 10-11 Peter declares both Jew and Gentile Christians are not to have the Law like a yoke around their necks since it is unbearable and the way people are saved is instead the grace of Jesus. A “yoke” or zugos in the Greek was a restraint put on the necks of animals that were tasked with pulling heavy loads.(5) This clearly means Christians are not under the unbearable restraint of the Law of Moses. Moreover, in vv. 19-20 James then goes on to say Gentiles should not be troubled (i.e., by circumcision or the Law of Moses) but instead should abide by New Covenant Law which instead simply includes things such as abstaining from things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and blood, etc. This is New Covenant Theology clearly demonstrating believers are not under Mosaic Law.

What is more, in Acts 10:11-15 Peter had a vision wherein Jesus declared foods clean for the New Covenant – foods which the Mosaic Law prescribed were unclean or unlawful:

“11and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13And there came a voice to him: ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 14But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.’ 15And the voice came to him again a second time, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common’” (Acts 10:11-15).

This is confirmed by Jesus in Mark 7:18-19 when Jesus said: “Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.)” Mark’s inspired commentary on Jesus’ teaching is Jesus was declaring all foods clean. Thomas Schreiner notes the word “defile” here (i.e., koinoō) in v. 18 “confirms that food laws in the Old Testament are under consideration.”(6) And it was Peter’s eyewitness testimony which was behind Mark’s gospel. This means according to Peter Jesus held the dietary laws in the Law of Moses were done away with. Such dietary laws can be found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. This is, again, because Christians are now under New Covenant rules and not the Law of Moses. In Romans 14 Paul also teaches all foods are now clean for believers (Romans 14:14, 20). He says, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. . . . Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.” (Romans 14:14, 20).

In Galatians 3:19 Paul affirms the temporary nature of the Mosaic Law when he says it “was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made” (Galatians 3:19). S. M. Baugh and Thomas Schreiner point out “offspring” of Abraham here refers to Christ and so the text is saying the Law was given until the coming of Christ.(7)

In Romans 6:14 Paul says Christians “are not under the Law.” And in Romans 7:6 Paul says “we are released from the Law.” Likewise in Romans 10:4 Paul says “Christ is the end of the Law.” Also, in Ephesians 2:15 Paul talks about God “abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” Frank Thielman notes the word for “abolishing” here is katargēsas and it is used elsewhere by Paul when discussing the Law being “set aside” (e.g. 2 Corinthians 3:7; Romans 7:2, 6). He notes here “believers [are] being ‘released’ from the law just as a wife is released when her husband dies, from the law binding her to him.”(8)

Lastly, Paul repeatedly states circumcision is no longer necessary to be part of the people of God (Romans 3:30; 4:9-12; 1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 5:6; 6:15). Yet, according to the Law of Moses circumcision was a strict command (Leviticus 12:3; Joshua 5:1-9). This means Paul knew the Mosaic Law was temporary.

The Mosaic Law is Part of the Mosaic Covenant which is now Obsolete

If the Old Covenant is obsolete then the Mosaic Law is as well. This is because the Mosaic Law is part of the Old Covenant. Modern scholarly research (e.g. George E. Mendenhall’s book Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East) reveals ancient Near Eastern people (such as Hittites) would often form treaties with others involving agreements and laws similar to the Mosaic covenant we find in the Old Testament between God and the Israelites. Many scholars affirm the Old Testament was drawing from this ancient practice of Israel’s neighbors, or that there is some sort of connection. In both cases, the stipulations or laws were part of the covenant / treaty. Thus, if a covenant became obsolete, the laws of that covenant would as well. When God made a covenant with Moses and the Israelites, he made an agreement. That is what a covenant is – an agreement with stipulations. The agreement was that God rescued the Israelites out of Egypt, and that the keeping of the Mosaic Law led to blessings, and the transgression of it led to curses (Exodus 20:2-3; 19:3-6; Deuteronomy 28:1-68).

Hence, the fact the New Testament explicitly states the Old Covenant is now obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), means the Laws of that Covenant are likewise obsolete. Again, the law is part of the covenant. This means Christians are not under the Laws of the obsolete Old Covenant. Instead, Christians are now under New Covenant rules of Jesus and the Apostles. This is why the New Testament repeatedly talks about “the law of Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2), and his (i.e., Jesus') commandments (John 13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10;  15:12; 15:14, 17; Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-35, 38-39, 43-44).

This is confirmed by 2 Corinthians 3. There the Apostle Paul contrasts the “New Covenant” with the “Old Covenant” (vv. 6-7, 14). He even connects the Old Covenant with the Law of Moses when he mentions “the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone,” (v. 7), and when he recalls “when they read the old covenant,” (v. 14) and “whenever Moses is read” (v. 15).  Hence, since Paul connects the Mosaic Law with the Old Covenant, and since he affirms the Old Covenant is replaced by the New, it follows the Mosaic Law is likewise replaced and obsolete.

Christians are not under the Sabbath Law

Various groups including Seventh Day Adventists teach Sabbath Law is still in effect. However, Sabbath was part of the Old Covenant Mosaic Law which we have demonstrated is now obsolete. Sabbath rest was the covenant sign for the Mosaic Covenant, similar to how the rainbow was the covenant sign of the Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:8-17), and how circumcision was the covenant sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 17). Since the Mosaic Covenant is now obsolete, the sign of the covenant (i.e., Sabbath) is as well.

Moreover, in Romans 14:5 Paul says “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” When Paul mentions those who esteem one day as better than another, he is no doubt talking about the Sabbath day of rest.(9) Yet, he shows indifference regarding the issue which means Christians are not obligated to keep the Sabbath Law. If Christians were obligated to keep it then Paul would not be so indifferent. Yet, according to the Law of Moses Sabbath was a strict command (e.g. Deuteronomy 5:14). Hence, according to the New Testament the Mosaic Law and the Sabbath command found in it are no longer in effect.

In Colossians 2:16-17 Paul calls the Sabbath a mere “shadow” along with certain food and festival requirements. The word for “shadow” here (skia) and it is the same word the author of the book of Hebrews uses to describe obsolete sacrifices of the Mosaic Law which are no longer in effect (Hebrews 10:1). Thus, Sabbath keeping, as a shadow, is likewise no longer in effect.

This information demonstrates according to the Bible it is sinful for groups to claim Christians are obligated to keep the Sabbath Law.

Now, many of the people who claim Christians are still under the Sabbath are viciously opposed to Sunday worship. They claim it is either a false Roman Catholic invention or a Roman pagan practice that infected the church. However, such thinking is erroneous and contrary to fact. Sunday worship is biblical and primitive. Acts 20:7 tell us Troas believers “On the first day of the week . . . gathered together to break bread” and then they heard a long message or sermon from Paul. Moreover, Paul commanded Christians to give money to the poor “on the first day of every week” (1 Corinthians 6:2). And Revelation 1:10 says “on the Lord’s day” John heard a loud voice from heaven. We know Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday or the first day of the week (Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1). Thus, the “Lord’s Day” is Sunday Resurrection Day when Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection are to be celebrated by believers in gathering.

Because of this evidence the earliest Christian writers after the New Testament went on to affirm Sunday worship instead of Saturday Sabbath rest. These writings were composed long before the Roman Catholic Church existed. Therefore, it is factually incorrect to say the Roman Catholic Church gave us Sunday worship or that pagan Rome did. In the first century Christian document known as the Didache we read “But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving” (Didache, 14). Writing around A.D. 110 the Christian Elder Ignatius of Antioch wrote “Those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death” (Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians, 8). Likewise, writing in the mid-second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr wrote, “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67).

Trying to Keep Mosaic Law is Impossible and Leads to Damnation

Those who falsely say Christians are still under the Law of Moses must realize it is impossible to keep it. There are 613 Laws and legalists must be pressed to realize they do not keep them. Although they think they do, they are actually hypocrites who do not. For example, ask them if they put tzitzit on the corners of their clothing (Num. 15:38), if they bind tefillin on their head and arm (Deut. 6:8), if they affix the mezuzah to the doorposts and gates of their house (Deut. 6:9), if they make sure to read the Shema every the morning and evening (Deut. 6:7), if they remove chametz on the Eve of Passover (Ex. 12:15), if they examine the marks of all cows their beef comes from (Lev. 11:2), if they examine the marks of all the fishes their fish meat comes from (Lev. 11:9), if they slay cattle, deer and fowl according to the slaughter laws (Deut. 12:21), if they never eat flesh with milk (Ex. 34:26), if they never make loans on interest (Lev. 25:37), if they never borrow on interest (Deut. 23:20), and if on the Sabbath they abstain from sowing, baking, washing wool, tying and making loops (i.e., tying shoe laces), tanning, writing two or more letters (including in texts, facebook or internet), erasing two or more letters, building, making a fire, putting the finishing touch on an object, or transporting an object between a private and public domain, etc. If they do any of these things on Sabbath, they are violating Sabbath Law and are hypocrites for putting Christians under it.

Peter knew Mosaic Law was impossible and thus, again, stated he and the ancient Jews were not even able to bear it (Acts 15:10). Paul also knew Mosaic Law was impossible and thus in Romans 3:9-20 he says man’s universal wickedness shows the Law is like a mirror revealing how evil everyone is (vv. 9-20). This then informs his conclusion that no one will be justified by law observance (v. 20) since man is too wicked and the Law is too perfect. His logic is it is not possible to keep the law to God’s satisfaction and be justified by that means. Paul’s solution comes in v. 25 which says therefore God sent Jesus to be our propitiatory sacrifice received by faith. Thus, while law is impossible because of our fallen condition and merely reveals how sinful we are like a mirror, faith in Jesus is instead what leads to right standing with God.

In Galatians 3:10 Paul teaches since we are now under the New Covenant, those who rely on keeping the Mosaic Law are cursed: “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them’” (Galatians 3:10). Paul’s logic here is if you rely on keeping Mosaic Law you are cursed since if you take that route you must keep it perfectly which is impossible. The same logic is found in Galatians 5:3: “I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” This teaching is confirmed by James 2:10 which says, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” On this text Douglas J. Moo notes, “James is not suggesting that anyone is in reality fulfilling every demand of the law; he simply puts forth a ‘suppose it were so’ assumption. That person, were he to stumble at even one ‘point’ (or commandment) is guilty of breaking it all.”(10) The point is if you rely on keeping the whole law or even just portions of it like circumcision or Sabbath then you are obligated to keep all of it which is impossible and leads to death. This is why Paul says the following:

“For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).

“For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

The Mosaic Law Can’t be Divided

Roman Catholics as well as Protestants who hold to Covenant Theology both erroneously teach Christians are under the “moral” aspects of the Law of Moses, but not the “ceremonial” or “civil” aspects. Theonomists or Reconstructionists are similar but they say Christians are under the “moral” and “civil” aspects, but not the “ceremonial” which they say is now obsolete.

However, all of these people are incorrect. The Law of Moses should not be divided into three categories (moral, ceremonial and civil). The law is the law. It is either in effect through Mosaic Covenant or its not. This idea of a three-fold division of the law as the basis for establishing continuity or discontinuity of the testaments is just not biblical or historical. Instead, it goes back to 13th century Catholic writer Thomas Aquinas.(11) It is also absent from the early Rabbinic literature.(12) It is indeed the product of modern Christian theology.

When Catholics and New Covenant theologians claim they are under the “moral” law but not the “ceremonial,” that is fuzzy since often times its hard to tell the difference between the two. For example, the law forbidding the taking of interest on loans is clearly moral (Exodus 22:25). Yet, it was given to Israel in the context of it being an agricultural society and so has a ceremonial element.(13) Similarly, while Theonomists distinguish between “moral” and “civil” law, such a distinction is also fuzzy. This is because it can be shown civil laws of the Old Testament have a moral element.(14)

It must be asked: which of the 613 Laws of Moses is not “moral”? They all are. So the idea of classifying some laws as “moral” and others as “ceremonial” or “civil” is problematic. As David A. Dorsey notes, “The Sabbath, the parapet law, the prohibition against muzzling of the treading ox – all the so-called ‘ceremonial’ and ‘civic’ laws embody or flesh out eternal moral and ethical principles.”(15)

The fact is the New Testament speaks of the Law of Moses in monolithic terms which is not what one would expect if this three-fold division idea is true, and if certain categories remain valid while others do not. Dorsey concludes,

“Legal obligation to only a portion of the corpus is nowhere suggested. If one is legally bound to the law, it is to the entire law, including every ‘minor’ stipulation, that he is bound. Paul writes: ‘I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the whole law’ (Gal 5:3). James states that the violation of one law makes one guilty of the whole law (Jas 2:10). . . . In Gal 3:24-25 Paul declares that ‘the law’ – not just one category of laws – was a schoolmaster whose task was to bring us to Christ, and now that it has completed its task ‘we are no longer under the law.’ In none of these or similar passages is there any statement regarding categories of laws.”(16) 

Conclusion

We showed much of the Mosaic Law only makes sense for ancient Israelites. We proved Jesus and the apostles taught the Mosaic Law is obsolete. We demonstrated the Mosaic Law is part of the Old Covenant which is now obsolete. We showed Christians are not under the Sabbath and that Christian Sunday worship is neither Roman Catholic nor pagan-based. Instead it is biblical and primitive. We proved trying to keep Mosaic Law, or even just portions of it, results in damnation since keeping the Law is impossible and was only meant to point us to Christ. Finally, we demonstrated it is erroneous to divide the law into three categories.

The New Testament teaches the Law of Moses is gone and obsolete. Jesus fulfilled the Law with his life of obedience, death and resurrection which enacted the New Covenant. Christians must now follow the rules given by Jesus and the Apostles as covenants come with rules. Anything in the Law of Moses that is not ratified by Jesus and the Apostles is not applicable to Christians. Anyone who relies on the Law of Moses, or portions of it, will not be saved.



Endnotes

1) David A. Dorsey, “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” JETS 34, [1991], p. 325
2) Ibid. 327
3) Ibid. 227-228
4) Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law, [Kregel, 2010], p. 191
5) David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, ed. D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, [Wm B. Eerdmans, 2009], p. 426
6) Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law, [Kregel, 2010], p. 162
7) S. M. Baugh, “Galatians 3:20 and the Covenant of Redemption,” WTJ 66, [2004], p. 53. n. 17; Thomas Schreiner, Galatians, ed. Clinton E. Arnold, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, [Zondervan, 2010], p. 241
8) Frank Thielman, Ephesians, ed. Yarborough et al., Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, [Baker Academic, 2010], p. 168
9) Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, ed. Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Wm B. Eerdmans, 1996], p. 842
10) Douglas J. Moo, James, ed. D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, [Wm B. Eerdmans, 2000], p. 114
11) D. A. Carson, Mystery and Fulfilment: Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm of Paul’s Understanding of the Old and New, eds. Carson et al, Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2, [Baker Academic, 2004], p. 429 n. 108
12) David A. Dorsey, “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” JETS 34, [1991], p. 329
13) Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law, [Kregel, 2010], p. 90
14) Ibid. p. 92
15) David A. Dorsey, “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” JETS 34, [1991], p. 330
16) Ibid. 330