photo #8130126

Many Christians struggle to address the claim that we inconsistently “pick and choose” which laws from the OT may be ignored while others must be obeyed. This has been ably rebutted many times, but once more for the kid in the back of the class with his head down on the desk: Moral laws (i.e., the Ten Commandments, the Shema, and the command to “love thy neighbor”) *continue* in the New Covenant as “the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2), since they are a reflection of the unchanging nature of God (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8). Hence we see the repetition of moral laws in the New Testament in many places (Matt. 22:37–39; Mark 10:19; Rom. 13:9–10; Gal. 5:14; 1 Tim. 1:5–11). † Ceremonial laws (i.e., the festivals, the temple regulations, and the sacrificial system) *cease* in the New Covenant, since they were but a shadow Christ, who is the substance (Col. 2:17; Heb. 9:1–10:25). This is why Jesus could declare foods like pork and shellfish to be clean (Mark 7:19) without altering anything intrinsic to God. For the foods were never sinful in themselves; they were rather temporary ordinances (“statutes”) established to teach Israel about ceremonial cleanness (Num. 19:1–22). Civil laws (e.g., anything relating to the life of Israel as individuals or as a nation) *are changed* in the New Covenant as regards their form but not their substance. These laws were context-specific applications of the moral law with particular (context-specific) penalties for violating them. Paul’s use of Deut. 25:4 in 1 Cor. 9:9 and 1 Tim. 5:18 shows us how this works. He derives a principle from a verse that was literally about oxen, and he applies it to apostles (1 Cor. 9) and elders (1 Tim. 5:18). To give a modern example: This is why many municipalities require houses with swimming pools to have a fence around their yard: it’s a contemporary application of the principle in Deut. 22:8. To sum all this up: —You must obey moral laws as expressions of God’s will for all people (Joh 14:15; Rom. 13:8–10). —You must not obey ceremonial laws, since they are abrogated by the work of Christ (Heb. 10:1–18). —You must consider the principle of civil laws, applying them in appropriate ways (1 Tim. 5:18). The upshot of this is that you have an answer for those who claim—as many progressives love to do—that Christians are guilty of “picking and choosing” which laws to obey, eating bacon-wrapped scallops (contra Lev. 19) while condemning the sexual sins listed in Leviticus 20 (e.g., homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, etc.). You are not being inconsistent; rather, you are being consistent in Christ. This is why sexual immorality of every kind is repeatedly prohibited in the New Testament, for these sins are by nature violations of God’s design (Rom. 1:26–27). Yet there was never anything intrinsically sinful about pork or clams. They were only prohibited in Israel, for a time, to teach them about ceremonial cleanness, which is now ours in the Lord. Hence Christ has “declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19).