Christians, how do you decide which parts of Pentateuchal law to hold to?

Question

Ive noticed that many Christians will quote OT scripture to justify certain actions or beliefs (e.g. condemnation of homosexuality). However, these same people do not follow dietary or purity laws. How do you decide which laws were invalidated by the NT and which were not?

Some of you are getting hung up on the homosexuality example. The real question is about the law.

Answer 1

When Christ came, he fulfilled all of the OT prophesies. Because he was the perfect sacrifice, some of the commands in the OT, like animal sacrifices, are no longer needed in order to enable us to have a relationship with God. If you look through the NT, you will see that God has given us a new covenant, which still contains some of the laws from the OT. We are specifically told that homosexuality is wrong and not to have sex outside of marriage. We are also told, however, that God made animals clean that were before forbidden in the scene where Peter has his vision of the animals and the angel commanding him to eat.
Because of Christ's sacrifice, we are no longer bound by the law of perfection, which is what the Israelites were held to before. The reason: God is holy, and in this holiness cannot tolerate anything which is not holy. He requires perfection. Since we can't be perfect, he sent his son to be perfect for us and pay the price for our sin - the sin which was previously covered by animal sacrifices.
Try searching the NT. You will find that they often quote the OT and God tells us how he wants us to live. It's not that Christians are trying to be two-faced or pick and choose which laws we should follow (and if people really are manipulating Scripture to make it say something it doesn't, I would seriously question the reality of their faith), it's that we're under a new covenant now. Some of the rules have changed.

Answer 2

Considering many of the ones not followed state "This is an eternal law for all generations"

This concept is mentioned no less than 24 times

Exodus 12:14, 12:17, 12:43, 27:21, 28:43, Leviticus 3:17, 7:36, 10:9, 16:29, 16:31, 16:34, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 23:31, 23:41, 24:3, Numbers 10:8, 15:15, 19:10, 19:21, 18:23, 35:29, Deuteronomy29:28


Doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

Answer 3

I don't want to get in to it too long, but a few basic points are...

1. As in real life, things are to be taken literally or figuratively. "Alice, you're going to the moon" is one, "I have to go to the restroom is another". Figuratively / literally.

2. OT laws were to God's (chosen hebrew) people. Dietary laws were made so the Jews wouldn't sit down and chew the fat with the neighbors (literally) and moral laws to promote the welfare of society. Ceromonial law (the Sabbath) is the other one.

3. Jesus did not have to carbon-copy the whole OT into his teachings, the teaching 'stood' until something was rescinded, - like the dietary law was rescinded to Peter and the 4-cornered blanket out of heaven. Since Jesus IS the Sabbath (rest) then that's out the door too.

So for us typical everyday type of person, -we "know" that having to go to the restroom, is not a 'place', but rather a gastrointestinal action we must perform. But to some nick-picker, 2,000 years from now, the frickin' genius is gonna think he knows everything and debate the others as to 'restroom' was the bedroom or the bathroom.

Just approach the Bible without an agenda, know that God is good, that every verse is beneficial to someone in time or place, know the basics of hermeneutics.

Answer 4

If you will read the book of Acts, the first general church council held in Jerusalem and chaired by James decided this question for us. The issue was should non Jewish believers have to convert to full Orthodox Judaism in order to be recieved into the church. The answer was no, and the justification seems to come from the rabbinical traditon preached about the covenant made with Noah after the flood. God at that time did not require all people to observe Jewish laws, there were no Jews then. Your reference to homosexuality is interesting because the church lived in an age when homosexuality was accepted and legal, yet the church condemed the practice, in accord with Jewish teaching on marriage. If one were to reject all moral law in scripture simply because it was "Jewish", then all moral law would be thrown out ( like in the French revolution, Nazi Germany, and Mao's China).

Answer 5

This depends on the style of Christianity and more importantly the view of scripture. For those who believe that the Bible is a document dictated to men by God, then picking and choosing which rules apply today becomes subjective and difficult.

For other Christians, we see the scriptures as man's account of his experiences with the Divine, so the question of which Old Testament laws are still "in force" becomes a little silly. The short answer is that the laws that make sense in our context should be respected. For example: the Old Testament law prohibits murder. This seems to make sense in our cultural context as well, so let's respect it. But the Old Testament also prohibits wearing clothes made of two different kinds of fabric. This doesn't make a lot of sense today, so it seems pretty safe to let it go.

Answer 6

Homosexuality is condemned in the NT also! Dietary and purity laws were for those in the OT. Don't take the bible out of context. Study it. We don't decide anything. Jesus speaks clearly in the NT of what we are to do today.

Answer 7

well, you have hit on a point where Christians are hypocritical. the law was established to regulate righteousness -- it is an example of how God expects us to live, but all it did was prove to people that they can't live up to the law on their own.

Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Actually, dietary laws (I believe) were more for safety than for purity because things like trichinosis and botulism were not known about then, and the preservation of food was practically non-existant.

Answer 8

That which was a law (i.e., do this under such-and-such circumstances) in the Old Testament was given to the Jews at Sinai. This law was taken away at Calvary (Galatians 3:24-25; Colossians 2:14)

Whatever was a principle (i.e., God hates such-and-such-an-action) continues, because God's nature doesn't change. (There are more than enough New Testament passages mentioning homosexuality to show that God has not changed His feeling toward such, including Romans 1).

Answer 9

The general consensus among Christians is that certain parts of the Old Testament law are not valid due to the coming of Christ. Each Christian denomination has a slightly different interpretation of which parts must be kept and which must be jettisoned, however, most denominations accept the Ten Commandments.

Answer 10

From one side of the fundamentalist Christian mouth comes: "Jesus voided the law given by God to Moses" while the other side of their mouth is saying "Jesus never changed any of God's laws." Good luck trying to reason with that doublespeak.

I'd like to know where it says in the New Testament that witches shouldn't be condemned to death. If that law wasn't "voided" by Jesus, why aren't fundamentalist Christians demanding that their senators and representatives enact laws to execute witches? God's instructions were very specific: "Suffer not a witch to live."

I also think (note to anyone who takes everything seriously: this is meant as irony) fundamentalist Christians should campaign for the rights of parents to kill their unruly children if they want to. The fact that they don't kill their rebelious children is an affront to the God who also told them gays are an abomination.