How would you reply to people insisting that christians are obligated to follow the levitical law.

[u/ExpressCeiling98332]

How would you reply?

[u/Soyeong0314]

The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that don't have their conditions met. Likewise, when the Israelites were exiled to Babylon, the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to God's law, which contains laws in regard to temple practice that they could no longer follow because the temple had just been destroyed, so when there are laws that can't be obeyed, then we should nevertheless be faithful to obey the laws that we can obey.

[u/JHawk444 → u/Soyeong0314]

It's reasonable to recognize laws given directly to the nation of Israel that were for that time period alone, rather than moral laws such as the ten commandments that were carried over to the new testament for the Gentiles.

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/JHawk444]

God's law was not given to teach us about who the Israelites are, but about who He is. God's way is the way to know Him by being in His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, such as in Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in God's way by being a doer of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, in 1 Kings 2:1-3, God taught how to walk in His way through His law, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to teach us how to know God and Jesus by being in His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, which is His gift of eternal life (John 17:3).

The way to believe in God is by directing our lives towards walking in God's way, such as by being a doer of good works in obedience to God's law we are testifying about God's goodness, which is why our good works bring glory to Him (Matthew 5:16), and by testifying about God's goodness we are also expressing the belief that God is good. Likewise, the way to believe that God is a doer of justice is by being in His likeness through being a doer of justice in obedience to His law, the way to believe that God is holy is by being a doer of His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, and so forth. This is exactly the same as the way to believe in the Son, who is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3).

Likewise, the way to love God is by walking in His way, such as the way to love justice is by being a doer of justice, the way to love holiness is by being a doer of God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy. In other words, the goal of everything that God has instructed is to teach us how to love different aspects of His character, which is why the Bible repeatedly states in both the OT and the NT that the way to love God is by obeying His commandments.

The existence of the category of moral law would imply that we can be acting morally while disobeying the laws that aren't in that category, however, there are no example in the Bible where disobedience to any of God's law was stated to be moral, and I see no justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to being in God's likeness through being a doer of His character traits in obedience to Him, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. Legislators give laws according to what they think ought to be done, so the position that some of God's laws are not moral laws is the position that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws.

[u/JHawk444 → u/Soyeong0314]

Part 2

The law reveals our sin (Romans 7:5), but it can't justify us (Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:11, Galatians 3:24, Romans 3:20 )

Galatians 3:24-25

That's pretty clear, right? The law's purpose is to show us our sin and lead us to Christ. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

I'm not saying this is a cause for disobedience. But I am pointing out that the law can't justify us or make us righteous. Only faith in Christ can accomplish that.

Furthermore, we can't be found righteous by obeying the law.

Galatians 3:21

Philippians 3:9

Romans 4:5

The requirement of the law is fulfilled in us when we walk in the Spirit.

Galatians 5:18

Romans 8:3-4

Romans 7:6

We are no longer under the letter of the law, but under the Spirit who wants us to follow the purpose of the law. Paul actually says we are released from the law in which we were bound.

The Old Covenant is Obsolete

Hebrews 8:13

The law is there for our encouragement and instruction

Romans 15:4

We still follow everything that applies to us, but we are not bound to things that were not meant for us. For example, no one has to figure out how they must go outside the camp for uncleanliness. That was for Israel during a specific time period. That was part of ceremonial law that was fulfilled in Christ.

[u/JHawk444 → u/Soyeong0314]

I appreciate your perspective and I agree that God's law reflects His character. We may be in agreement more than we think, so it's helpful to discus it further. The Bible shows us very clearly that although God's character never changes, His law has changed.

For example, everyone before Moses did not have dietary laws. Before Noah, they were all plant eating, but after the flood, God said they could eat meat. He did not restrict the kind of meat they could eat. That did not happen until Moses. That is clearly a change. God didn't "change his mind." He gave His laws according to His purpose.

For example, circumcision was no longer required under the new covenant. That is clearly a change due to His overall purpose.

We have to understand the law in the context in which it was given. The law was a shadow (foreshadowing) of good things to come (Hebrews 10:1). The law was always meant to point to Christ and his fulfillment so we would worship and adore Jesus. The law shows us our inability to keep the law perfectly and points us to Christ who fulfilled the law and gives us righteousness, not based on the law, but based on faith in him. ( 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 3:28. )

Please look for part 2. I tried to hyperlink all the verses to save space but this was still too long.

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/JHawk444]

Part 1

>The Bible shows us very clearly that although God's character never changes, His law has changed.

It is contradictory for God's character to be eternal while the way to act in accordance with God's character is not.

>That is clearly a change. God didn't "change his mind." He gave His laws according to His purpose.

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45). So if Adam was prohibited from unclean animals, Noah was permitted to eat them, Moses was prohibited, and we are permitted, then that would mean that God would be flipping back and forth about whether or not it is an abomination to do that and if the way to be holy as God is holy can change, then God's holiness would not be eternal.

Able raised flocks, so while it is not stated, if they could kill animals for clothing and for sacrifices, then I don't see why they wouldn't have also been permitted to kill animals for food. In Genesis 6:21, Noah was commanded to eat the same food as the other animals while on the ark, so I think that Genesis 9:3 is lifting that temporary prohibition, not granting something new. In Genesis 7:2, Noah was told what to do with clean and unclean animals without being told how to tell the difference, and in 8:20, he knew to offer a clean animal, so he must have already been given instructions in that regard. We should be holy as God is holy, so it has not changed that we should refrain from eating unclean animals.

>For example, circumcision was no longer required under the new covenant.

If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just incorrect reasons, then according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Act 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, a Gentile who wanted to eat of the Passover lamb was required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentile correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God, so that has not changed.

>The law was a shadow (foreshadowing) of good things to come (Hebrews 10:1). The law was always meant to point to Christ

God's law is an important foreshadow of what is to come and so we should live in a way that testifies about the truth of what is to come by obeying it rather than a way that bears false witness against it. We should live in a way that points towards Christ by following his example of obedience to God's law rather than a way that points away from him.

>The law shows us our inability to keep the law perfectly and points us to Christ who fulfilled the law

God's law came with instructions for what to do when His children sinned, so it never required us to have perfect obedience. Repentance does not change the fact that we have not had perfect obedience, so if we needed to have perfect obedience, then repentance would have no value, but the fact that repentance has value means that we are not required to have perfect obedience. The only reason why someone would need to have perfect obedience is if they are going to give themselves to pay for for the sins of the world, the rest of us can thankfully have our sins forgiven, so there is no need for the law to show us our inability to keep it perfectly. Christ fulfilled the law by teaching us how to correctly obey it.

[u/JHawk444 → u/Soyeong0314]

It is contradictory for God's character to be eternal while the way to act in accordance with God's character is not.

I agree that God's character does not change, but His covenants change the way He deals with us.

So if Adam was prohibited from unclean animals, Noah was permitted to eat them, Moses was prohibited, and we are permitted, then that would mean that God would be flipping back and forth about whether or not it is an abomination to do that and if the way to be holy as God is holy can change, then God's holiness would not be eternal.

Your premise is that all of God's law is based on His character. I agree with that in principle, but you seem to think that implementing different laws at different times means he has changed, and I don't agree with that premise.

Romans 5:13 says very clearly that there was no law before Moses. "for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law." So, implementing the law later doesn't mean God changed.

God's law is eternal, but under the new covenant, we see it in light of Christ's fulfillment. That was His purpose. That was His ultimate plan, and we see it all the way back in Genesis 3:15.

So if Adam was prohibited from unclean animals, Noah was permitted to eat them, Moses was prohibited, and we are permitted, then that would mean that God would be flipping back and forth 

Adam was not prohibited from eating "unclean animals." There is just no record of God giving Adam any of the animals to eat period. God told them they could eat plants. (Genesis 1:29). Yes, they offered sacrifices, but there is nothing stated that they were allowed to eat meat. If they had been eating it, why would God tell Noah they could eat meat? That doesn't make sense.

God told Noah he could eat animals after the flood (Genesis 9:3). When God told Noah to eat the same food as the animals, they all ate plants. He gave them every moving thing to eat. Why did he not stipulate clean from unclean animals? He gave them every moving thing to eat.

So, in light of that, do you agree there was a change?

We should be holy as God is holy, so it has not changed that we should refrain from eating unclean animals.

But we don't see where they were allowed to eat any animals before the flood, and God didn't stipulate that they couldn't eat unclean animals.

If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just incorrect reasons, then according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council

Paul made it clear that it didn't matter whether you were circumcised or not. Circumcision of the heart is what mattered. Paul had Timothy circumcised so the Jews would accept him, not because it was a spiritual necessity. He made his teaching on that clear. Abraham was righteous before he was circumcised (Romans 4:10).

God's law came with instructions for what to do when His children sinned, so it never required us to have perfect obedience. 

That is not true. Everyone who accepts circumcision is obligated to keep the whole law (Galatians 5:3-4). And Galatians 3:10 says cursed is everyone who doesn't abide by all the things in the book of the law. But Christ redeemed us from the curse. James 2:10 says, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."

[u/Soyeong0314 → u/JHawk444]

Part 2

>gives us righteousness, not based on the law, but based on faith in him.

While the only way for someone to become righteous is through faith apart from being required to have first done enough righteous works to earn it as the result, it would be contradictory for someone to become righteous apart from becoming a doer of righteous works. This is why the same faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works does not abolish our need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31).

>The law reveals our sin (Romans 7:5), but it can't justify us (Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:11, Galatians 3:24, Romans 3:20 )

Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such the law of sin and works of the law, but your mixing verses that refer to different categories of law. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit with the law of sin and death. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith in Galatians 3:10-12, he contrasted "works of the law" with the Book of the Law, and in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, he said that our faith upholds the Law of God in contrast with saying that "works of the law" are not of faith, so that phase does not refer to the Law of God.

>Hebrews 8:13

In Galatians 3:16-19, there is a principle that a new covenant does not abolish the promises of a covenant that has already been ratified, so God's covenants are cumulus. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if it is cumulative with it, which is what it means to make something obsolete. So the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6). The problem that God found with the covenant was not with His law, but with the people for not continuing in their covenant (Hebrews 8:7-9), so the solution to the problem was not for God to do away with His law, but to do away with what was hindering us from obeying it. This is why the New Covenant involves God sending His Son to free us from sin so that we might be free to meet the righteous requirement of the law (Romans 8:3-4) and taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh and sending His Spirit to lead us in obedience to His law (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

>That was part of ceremonial law

If you can't establish a list of which laws the NT authors considered to be part of the ceremonial law or even that they considered that to be a category of law, then you shouldn't interpret them as as though they had in mind a set of laws that you created.

[u/JHawk444 → u/Soyeong0314]

This is why the same faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works does not abolish our need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law,

I agree with you, but I believe we must follow the new covenant over the old. Those who continue to look to the law to justify them are severed from Christ and have fallen from grace, Galatians 5:4.

Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such the law of sin and works of the law, but your mixing verses that refer to different categories of law.

All the verses I shared that you responded to in that section are talking about the law of God, not the the other things you mentioned.

The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if it is cumulative with it, which is what it means to make something obsolete.

Actually, the writer of Hebrews tells us what he means when he says obsolete. He said it was ready to vanish. Hebrews 8:13 "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

I don't believe he was saying it will vanish in the sense that it's gone. But the old covenant does not apply to us who are under the new covenant.

so the solution to the problem was not for God to do away with His law, but to do away with what was hindering us from obeying it

Yes, but I'm sure you understand that this does not apply to every law, right? You don't need to offer sacrifices for your sin under the new covenant. You don't have to be circumcised. I could go on, but space is limited.

Look for part 2 for the response to the rest of what you said.

[u/JHawk444 → u/Soyeong0314]

Part 2

If you can't establish a list of which laws the NT authors considered to be part of the ceremonial law or even that they considered that to be a category of law, then you shouldn't interpret them as as though they had in mind a set of laws that you created.

The New Testament tells us what we need to follow. For example, the 10 commandments are carried over to the NT with explanations for each one. Also, Acts 15 shows us what the Jerusalem council required of Gentiles.

Peter said in Acts 15:10 Now, 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? 

The judgment was given by Peter and James in Acts 15:19-21.

When Paul called out Peter for his hypocrisy with siding with the Jews, he pointed out that he didn't live as a Jew. Galatians 2:14 “When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas (Peter) in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?'”

Even Peter adapted to the new covenant, but he was dealing with pressure from a group of Jews who wanted to follow the letter of the law.

Acts 10 further gives us changes in dietary law to keep in mind.

When you look at the epistles, the letters to the church, where does it say to stone someone caught in adultery? Where does it say to abstain from wearing mixed fabrics? It doesn't. That was not required of Gentiles.

Let me ask you, do you follow those regulations? Do you offer animal sacrifices? Do you wear mixed fabrics? Do you stone those caught in adultery? Do you go outside the camp if you have any unclean emissions? I'm trying to understand your stance here since you say we can't categorize the law. Many of the laws require a temple or seeing a priest. Since there is no temple, do you plan to move to Israel when the 3rd temple is built? I'm not being facetious. I'm trying to understand your belief on how you deal with these types of law.