Was Jesus opposed to the main message of the OT?

[hedrick]

The OT is a complex set of books. There’s lots in it that Jesus used. But the fundamental theme of the historical books and prophets is about the nation Israel. God gave Israel the Holy Land. When it sinned, he arranged for them to be punished by foreign invaders. When they repented he brought them back.

This seems to be the overarching theme of all of the histories, and in fact the reason the historical books were written. While they used earlier historical sources, the editorial viewpoint is always that God punishes the people by national defeat, and forgiveness means restoration of the nation in the land of Israel.

Many (most?) 1st Cent Jews continued this: If they only followed the Law, God would restore Israel, throwing out the Romans.

What Jesus used from this was God holding his people responsible for their actions, and wanting to forgive and restore them. But in the OT this was always in the context of the land of Israel. It seems to me that Jesus broke that connection. The Kingdom of God for him seems to be about people, and community, but I see no sign of connecting it to the land of Israel. So he used lots of what the Prophets said, but disconnected it from the original context and intent. (This is not a criticism of Jesus, of course.)

Paul saw Christians as grafted into Israel. But in doing that he is using a different concept of Israel than the OT, one that brings it in line with Jesus. His Israel becomes the people of God, but it’s no longer connected to the Land, nor is it marked by the Laws that set it apart. He argues that those Laws can’t be the real foundation of Israel, since Israel starts with Abraham. It’s an interesting argument, and this redefinition of Israel allows it to become roughly equivalent to Jesus’ Kingdom of God, But it’s not consistent with most of the OT. I also don’t see any evidence that Jesus himself was interested in Israel.

 

[dqhall]

The OT is a complex set of books. There’s lots in it that Jesus used. But the fundamental theme of the historical books and prophets is about the nation Israel. God gave Israel the Holy Land. When it sinned, he arranged for them to be punished by foreign invaders. When they repented he brought them back.

This seems to be the overarching theme of all of the histories, and in fact the reason the historical books were written. While they used earlier historical sources, the editorial viewpoint is always that God punishes the people by national defeat, and forgiveness means restoration of the nation in the land of Israel.

Many (most?) 1st Cent Jews continued this: If they only followed the Law, God would restore Israel, throwing out the Romans.

What Jesus used from this was God holding his people responsible for their actions, and wanting to forgive and restore them. But in the OT this was always in the context of the land of Israel. It seems to me that Jesus broke that connection. The Kingdom of God for him seems to be about people, and community, but I see no sign of connecting it to the land of Israel. So he used lots of what the Prophets said, but disconnected it from the original context and intent. (This is not a criticism of Jesus, of course.)

Paul saw Christians as grafted into Israel. But in doing that he is using a different concept of Israel than the OT, one that brings it in line with Jesus. His Israel becomes the people of God, but it’s no longer connected to the Land, nor is it marked by the Laws that set it apart. He argues that those Laws can’t be the real foundation of Israel, since Israel starts with Abraham. It’s an interesting argument, and this redefinition of Israel allows it to become roughly equivalent to Jesus’ Kingdom of God, But it’s not consistent with most of the OT. I also don’t see any evidence that Jesus himself was interested in Israel.

The teachers of the law used the OT laws about Sabbath observance as a way to justify their desire to kill Jesus. He was opposed to their usage of the Old Testament in this case.

Another OT passage declares, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” That is to treat others the way you would want to be treated. One should not argue against this law.

 

[childeye 2]

The OT is a complex set of books. There’s lots in it that Jesus used. But the fundamental theme of the historical books and prophets is about the nation Israel. God gave Israel the Holy Land. When it sinned, he arranged for them to be punished by foreign invaders. When they repented he brought them back.

This seems to be the overarching theme of all of the histories, and in fact the reason the historical books were written. While they used earlier historical sources, the editorial viewpoint is always that God punishes the people by national defeat, and forgiveness means restoration of the nation in the land of Israel.

Many (most?) 1st Cent Jews continued this: If they only followed the Law, God would restore Israel, throwing out the Romans.

What Jesus used from this was God holding his people responsible for their actions, and wanting to forgive and restore them. But in the OT this was always in the context of the land of Israel. It seems to me that Jesus broke that connection. The Kingdom of God for him seems to be about people, and community, but I see no sign of connecting it to the land of Israel. So he used lots of what the Prophets said, but disconnected it from the original context and intent. (This is not a criticism of Jesus, of course.)

Paul saw Christians as grafted into Israel. But in doing that he is using a different concept of Israel than the OT, one that brings it in line with Jesus. His Israel becomes the people of God, but it’s no longer connected to the Land, nor is it marked by the Laws that set it apart. He argues that those Laws can’t be the real foundation of Israel, since Israel starts with Abraham. It’s an interesting argument, and this redefinition of Israel allows it to become roughly equivalent to Jesus’ Kingdom of God, But it’s not consistent with most of the OT. I also don’t see any evidence that Jesus himself was interested in Israel.

Tough question. I don't think Jesus could ever be against the messaging in the sense that the message was necessary, but he would be against it in that it was futile. The backdrop for the New Testament is described in terms of the law coming before Truth and grace, the letter of the law before the spirit of the law. The letter of the law is about condemnation while grace is about mercy and understanding.

Basically Israel existed as a chosen people to bring forth the Messiah to the whole world.

 

[SkyWriting]

Paul says stuff having not met Jesus, could not apply things well where the rubber meets the road. Dealing with sinners and such.

 

[TheWhat?]

I don't see that as being the case. Did you have a more specific example in mind?

In my reading, Jesus expounds more fully from the broad teachings of the texts, whereas the opponents of Jesus are caught up in teachings more relevant and useful to them at that time. Being caught up in preserving their social structure, hierarchy, authority, and presumably all the benefits that come with that, they're incentivized to ignore the complete teaching, and in turning away from it, and against Jesus, they show they are not true believers or followers, not "true worshipers."

 

[childeye 2]

I don't see that as being the case. Did you have a more specific example in mind?

In my reading, Jesus expounds more fully from the broad teachings of the texts, whereas the opponents of Jesus are caught up in teachings more relevant and useful to them at that time. Being caught up in preserving their social structure, hierarchy, authority, and presumably all the benefits that come with that, they're incentivized to ignore the complete teaching, and in turning away from it, and against Jesus, they show they are not true believers or followers, not "true worshipers."

Who are you addressing?

 

[TheWhat?]

Who are you addressing?

The OP

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I hate the thread title it sounds very Marcionite / Gnostic / Manichean etc. like the Old Testament and New Testament are against each other.

As far as the OP goes I see things concerning the famous "new wine skin" passage. Jesus gave us a new covenant and one that included the Gentiles, but he first had to complete and fulfill the Old Covenant.
This is not about being against something but rather giving us something better that is more complete etc.


I will however note in the Gospels Jesus does occasionally use rhetorical devices where he seems to be against certain Old Testament conventions like the use of calling someone righteous, a father, the policy of divorce etc. But I see this as a kind of social commentary of the time, and not that he is truly against something, otherwise he would be contradicting himself.

 

[SkyWriting]

The teachers of the law used the OT laws about Sabbath observance as a way to justify their desire to kill Jesus. He was opposed to their usage of the Old Testament in this case.

Another OT passage declares, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” That is to treat others the way you would want to be treated. One should not argue against this law.

That is the only law. It's why Jesus existed as a person.

There are no other guidelines that beat
The Greatest Commandment
(and another is like it.)

 

[Aussie Pete]

The OT is a complex set of books. There’s lots in it that Jesus used. But the fundamental theme of the historical books and prophets is about the nation Israel. God gave Israel the Holy Land. When it sinned, he arranged for them to be punished by foreign invaders. When they repented he brought them back.

This seems to be the overarching theme of all of the histories, and in fact the reason the historical books were written. While they used earlier historical sources, the editorial viewpoint is always that God punishes the people by national defeat, and forgiveness means restoration of the nation in the land of Israel.

Many (most?) 1st Cent Jews continued this: If they only followed the Law, God would restore Israel, throwing out the Romans.

What Jesus used from this was God holding his people responsible for their actions, and wanting to forgive and restore them. But in the OT this was always in the context of the land of Israel. It seems to me that Jesus broke that connection. The Kingdom of God for him seems to be about people, and community, but I see no sign of connecting it to the land of Israel. So he used lots of what the Prophets said, but disconnected it from the original context and intent. (This is not a criticism of Jesus, of course.)

Paul saw Christians as grafted into Israel. But in doing that he is using a different concept of Israel than the OT, one that brings it in line with Jesus. His Israel becomes the people of God, but it’s no longer connected to the Land, nor is it marked by the Laws that set it apart. He argues that those Laws can’t be the real foundation of Israel, since Israel starts with Abraham. It’s an interesting argument, and this redefinition of Israel allows it to become roughly equivalent to Jesus’ Kingdom of God, But it’s not consistent with most of the OT. I also don’t see any evidence that Jesus himself was interested in Israel.

This is what Lord Jesus had to sayJohn 5:39) You pore over the Scriptures because you presume that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very words that testify about Me, 40yet you refuse to come to Me to have life.…

The scriptures are, of course, the OT. And when Lord Jesus spoke to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, He revealed to them what the OT had to say about Himself. (Luke 24:28)
You are right, Lord Jesus said little about Israel the nation. And Abraham was not just the founder of Israel. It is his "seed", the Lord Jesus that is supreme over all.

I believe that Israel exists and prospers as a visible testimony to God's faithfulness and power. Israel should not exist. It should not prosper. It's not even worthy from a spiritual point of view. Yet God made a promise and He has kept it, much to the chagrin of those Muslim nations that would dearly love to destroy Israel.

 

[A_Thinker]

The OT is a complex set of books. There’s lots in it that Jesus used. But the fundamental theme of the historical books and prophets is about the nation Israel. God gave Israel the Holy Land. When it sinned, he arranged for them to be punished by foreign invaders. When they repented he brought them back.

This seems to be the overarching theme of all of the histories, and in fact the reason the historical books were written. While they used earlier historical sources, the editorial viewpoint is always that God punishes the people by national defeat, and forgiveness means restoration of the nation in the land of Israel.

Many (most?) 1st Cent Jews continued this: If they only followed the Law, God would restore Israel, throwing out the Romans.

What Jesus used from this was God holding his people responsible for their actions, and wanting to forgive and restore them. But in the OT this was always in the context of the land of Israel. It seems to me that Jesus broke that connection. The Kingdom of God for him seems to be about people, and community, but I see no sign of connecting it to the land of Israel. So he used lots of what the Prophets said, but disconnected it from the original context and intent. (This is not a criticism of Jesus, of course.)

Paul saw Christians as grafted into Israel. But in doing that he is using a different concept of Israel than the OT, one that brings it in line with Jesus. His Israel becomes the people of God, but it’s no longer connected to the Land, nor is it marked by the Laws that set it apart. He argues that those Laws can’t be the real foundation of Israel, since Israel starts with Abraham. It’s an interesting argument, and this redefinition of Israel allows it to become roughly equivalent to Jesus’ Kingdom of God, But it’s not consistent with most of the OT. I also don’t see any evidence that Jesus himself was interested in Israel.

What may be needful ... is to understand that God can do different things ... at different times.

John (the Apostle) said that Moses brought the Law, but the Jesus brought Grace and Truth.

Jesus clearly said ... that He was bringing NEW wine.

I'd argue that God used the people of Israel ... to DEMONSTRATE that humanity was by itself incapable of LOVING as God desired.

In Isaiah, the song of the vinekeeper said that the keeper of the vineyard did everything he could to care for the vineyard. Yet, when he searched the vineyard for fruit, ... he could only find sour grapes.

Israel was also representative of humanity in demonstrating the continuing desire of God to have relationship with humanity. Jesus brought the fulfillment of that desire ... when relationship with God is opened officially to every member of humanity.

Israel is a stepping stone ... and continuing feature ... in the fulfillment of God's will for the world.

 

[SkyWriting]

I will however note in the Gospels Jesus does occasionally use rhetorical devices where he seems to be against certain Old Testament conventions like the use of calling someone righteous, a father, the policy of divorce etc. But I see this as a kind of social commentary of the time, and not that he is truly against something, otherwise he would be contradicting himself.

But I say it was more of a scolding of spiritually immature minds.

Matthew 5:39 But I I tell you not to resist an evil person.
Matthew 17:12 But I I tell you that Elijah has already come
Luke 6:27 But to those of you who will listen,
Mark 9:13 But I I tell you that Elijah has indeed come,
Matthew 5:32 But I I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,
Matthew 5:34 But I I tell you not to swear at all
Matthew 5:28 But I I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already
Matthew 11:24 But I I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than
Matthew 12:6 But I I tell you that something greater than the temple is here
Matthew 12:36 But I I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every
Matthew 19:9 Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and

 

[Hank77]

Basically Israel existed as a chosen people to bring forth the Messiah to the whole world.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

The OT is a complex set of books. There’s lots in it that Jesus used. But the fundamental theme of the historical books and prophets is about the nation Israel. God gave Israel the Holy Land. When it sinned, he arranged for them to be punished by foreign invaders. When they repented he brought them back.

I think when people follow God, they make good decisions and do things they can be proud of. When people turn their backs on God, they make bad decisions and do things people with morals would be ashamed to. God doesn't necessarily arrange for israel to be punished by foreign invaders. People could achieve that on their own time.

Falling away from God. Is said to be a worse sin than being born and living in a world with no God. Israel falling away from God could be the more sinful path. Which could translate to them naturally losing battles on their own merit.

Paul saw Christians as grafted into Israel. But in doing that he is using a different concept of Israel than the OT, one that brings it in line with Jesus. His Israel becomes the people of God, but it’s no longer connected to the Land, nor is it marked by the Laws that set it apart. He argues that those Laws can’t be the real foundation of Israel, since Israel starts with Abraham. It’s an interesting argument, and this redefinition of Israel allows it to become roughly equivalent to Jesus’ Kingdom of God, But it’s not consistent with most of the OT. I also don’t see any evidence that Jesus himself was interested in Israel.

If I remember right Jesus refers to jewish pharisees using the honorific "O sons of vipers".

That and whatever pharisees and sadducees did to pull that treatment sound vaguely like a deal breaker.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The OT is a complex set of books. There’s lots in it that Jesus used. But the fundamental theme of the historical books and prophets is about the nation Israel. God gave Israel the Holy Land. When it sinned, he arranged for them to be punished by foreign invaders. When they repented he brought them back.

This seems to be the overarching theme of all of the histories, and in fact the reason the historical books were written. While they used earlier historical sources, the editorial viewpoint is always that God punishes the people by national defeat, and forgiveness means restoration of the nation in the land of Israel.

Many (most?) 1st Cent Jews continued this: If they only followed the Law, God would restore Israel, throwing out the Romans.

What Jesus used from this was God holding his people responsible for their actions, and wanting to forgive and restore them. But in the OT this was always in the context of the land of Israel. It seems to me that Jesus broke that connection. The Kingdom of God for him seems to be about people, and community, but I see no sign of connecting it to the land of Israel. So he used lots of what the Prophets said, but disconnected it from the original context and intent. (This is not a criticism of Jesus, of course.)

Paul saw Christians as grafted into Israel. But in doing that he is using a different concept of Israel than the OT, one that brings it in line with Jesus. His Israel becomes the people of God, but it’s no longer connected to the Land, nor is it marked by the Laws that set it apart. He argues that those Laws can’t be the real foundation of Israel, since Israel starts with Abraham. It’s an interesting argument, and this redefinition of Israel allows it to become roughly equivalent to Jesus’ Kingdom of God, But it’s not consistent with most of the OT. I also don’t see any evidence that Jesus himself was interested in Israel.

Where does the New Jerusalem sit?

 

[eleos1954]

Tough question. I don't think Jesus could ever be against the messaging in the sense that the message was necessary, but he would be against it in that it was futile. The backdrop for the New Testament is described in terms of the law coming before Truth and grace, the letter of the law before the spirit of the law. The letter of the law is about condemnation while grace is about mercy and understanding.

Basically Israel existed as a chosen people to bring forth the Messiah to the whole world.

Basically Israel existed as a chosen people to bring forth the Messiah to the whole world.

True and they missed the boat on that one (getting the message out of the Messiah) .... and therefore getting the gospel out went to the gentiles.

Luke 19:41–44 NKJV
Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

Acts 13

45But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, and they blasphemously contradicted what Paul was saying. 46Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “It was necessary to speak the word of God to you first. But since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.

 

[childeye 2]

True and they missed the boat on that one (getting the message out of the Messiah) .... and therefore getting the gospel out went to the gentiles.

Luke 19:41–44 NKJV
Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

Acts 13

45But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, and they blasphemously contradicted what Paul was saying. 46Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “It was necessary to speak the word of God to you first. But since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.

Great choice of scriptures. Your post also brought to my mind these scriptures.

Acts 13
38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

1. • Mark 4:11
     And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
   • Romans 11:25
     For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
   • Romans 16:25
     Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
   • 1 Corinthians 2:7
     But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

 

[childeye 2]

I hate the thread title it sounds very Marcionite / Gnostic / Manichean etc. like the Old Testament and New Testament are against each other.

It may appear that sin is the common theme in the dichotomy of accuse/excuse, Old/New, condemn/forgive. But I believe they are both necessary to reveal a deeper issue, which is the connection between how a Holy Image of God is actually what makes mankind holy. I believe that Jesus is about believing in a true image of God so as to quicken the spirit that was corrupted through believing in a corrupt image of god. The understanding of why terms like 'justification' and 'sanctification' are used, is based on this issue.

 

[The Liturgist]

The OT is a complex set of books. There’s lots in it that Jesus used. But the fundamental theme of the historical books and prophets is about the nation Israel. God gave Israel the Holy Land. When it sinned, he arranged for them to be punished by foreign invaders. When they repented he brought them back.

This seems to be the overarching theme of all of the histories, and in fact the reason the historical books were written. While they used earlier historical sources, the editorial viewpoint is always that God punishes the people by national defeat, and forgiveness means restoration of the nation in the land of Israel.

Many (most?) 1st Cent Jews continued this: If they only followed the Law, God would restore Israel, throwing out the Romans.

What Jesus used from this was God holding his people responsible for their actions, and wanting to forgive and restore them. But in the OT this was always in the context of the land of Israel. It seems to me that Jesus broke that connection. The Kingdom of God for him seems to be about people, and community, but I see no sign of connecting it to the land of Israel. So he used lots of what the Prophets said, but disconnected it from the original context and intent. (This is not a criticism of Jesus, of course.)

Paul saw Christians as grafted into Israel. But in doing that he is using a different concept of Israel than the OT, one that brings it in line with Jesus. His Israel becomes the people of God, but it’s no longer connected to the Land, nor is it marked by the Laws that set it apart. He argues that those Laws can’t be the real foundation of Israel, since Israel starts with Abraham. It’s an interesting argument, and this redefinition of Israel allows it to become roughly equivalent to Jesus’ Kingdom of God, But it’s not consistent with most of the OT. I also don’t see any evidence that Jesus himself was interested in Israel.

No, because aside from the fact that St. Paul was a Holy Apostle of Christ, inspired by the Holy Spirit, whose apostolate was accepted and recognized by the surviving members of the Twelve (including St. Matthias and excluding Judas Iscariot, who he was ordained to replace) and the Seventy (St. Stephen the Illustrious Protomartyr, one of the first seven deacons, was I believe among the Seventy), and therefore what he taught concerning the Old Testament is not contradictory to what Christ taught, we see, in the conclusion of the Gospel of Luke, the real meaning of the Old Testament revealed, in that it is primarily a Christological prophecy; to the extent it is also an allegorical account of the creation of the universe and a theological narrative of the spiritual history of the Hebraic peoples, in particular, the Jews, which is to say, the descendants of Judah, Benjamin and the portion of the Levites who formed the Southern Kingdom, it is valuable, but the main purpose of it is Christological and Eschatological prophecy.

This is why the often overlooked method of the Alexandrian Catechetical School of interpreting the Old Testament as typological prophecy, metaphor, and instructive allegory is so important; of course, we also need the method of the School of Antioch, which is a historical-literal approach, since we see in Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia the dangers of using either an Alexandrian or an Antiochene mode of interpretation exclusively. Another instance of Alexandrian overuse which is particularly absurd is the psuedepigraphical Epistle of Barnabas, and the dangers of the Antiochene literal-historical method can be seen in Fundamentalist and Young Earth Creationist circles.

It was really the Cappadocians (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Macrina, and St. Peter of Sebaste) and of course St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom, and the Western and Syrian Fathers, who synthesized the two approaches, so that by the end of the fifth century the two had been harmonized, although the schools that produced them were somewhat discredited by Nestorianism in the case of Antioch, whose scholars were exiled to Nisibis, and Alexandria, which became isolated as a result of the unfortunate Chalcedonian schism, which was only partially their responsibility, insofar as Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria was deceived by Eutyches, who unlike St. Dioscorus, St. Severus, St. Gregory of Narek, St. Jacob of Sarugh, St. Gregorios bar Hebraeus, and the other Oriental Orthodox theologians, actually was a Monophysite.

 

[The Liturgist]

That is the only law. It's why Jesus existed as a person.

There are no other guidelines that beat
The Greatest Commandment
(and another is like it.)

I assume you mean it is why the Only Begotten Son and Word of God became incarnate, that is to say, why the second person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son, became man. But I disagree - the Summary of the Law, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, with particular elegance in the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Matthew 22:25-40 , is more than the Golden Rule:

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Furthermore, St. Athanasius, in his definitive work On The Incarnation, which I think everyone ought to read, along with his biography of St. Anthony, for these reasons, teaches us that God became Man so that man could become god, which is the doctrine of Theosis or what John Wesley called Entire Sanctification.

In this respect the Summary of the Law is of great importance, because a Christian who has a living faith will want to keep those two simple rules, and an ostensible Christian who does not.* This is made particularly clear in the Epistle of St. James the Just. The reason why a Christian with living faith will want to treat others as himself, and will prioritize God over everything else, is because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the grace He provides to us as our Paraclete both directly and sacramentally, for example, through Baptism and Holy Communion and the other sacred mysteries (the exact list varies from denomination to denomination; Lutherans include Confession, the Orthodox include, at a minimum, those three sacraments, and also Chrismation, Holy Unction (the Oil of Healing), Ordination, and Holy Matrimony, and the Church of the East includes the Sign of the Cross and the baking of the bread to be consecrated in the Eucharist.

*For example, various nominally Christian monarchs, judges and politicians of all stripes since Christianity became the prevailing religion in the Roman Empire and other countries like the city state of Edessa, and Armenia, Kartvelia (Georgia), and Ethiopia, in the Fourth Century, which by the way is not to deny there have been genuine and even saintly Christian monarchs, judges and politicians (St. Vladimir the Great, who converted Kievan Rus to Christianity and abolished the death penalty, this being the year 1,000 where in most countries, brutal capital punishment was inflicted for even trivial crimes and as a form of public entertainment, is a good example; he had character flaws, but Kievan Rus was probably the best and most classically liberal place to live in that era, after the Baptism of the Rus until its conquest by the Mongolian Empire and the transfer of political power among the Rus peoples to the Muscovites, at which time I think San Marino might have become the nicest place to live).