Why do Christians “Ignore” Some of the Law, but not all?

I’ve been seeing lots of images like this popping up:

It really just shows the ignorance involved on the opposite side of the issue. And when I see Christians get puzzled by things of this nature, it shows how ignorant Christians are of basic theology. The Law of Moses is often a misunderstood subject in its relation to Christianity. There are some people who say that its been fulfilled and we can properly ignore it. There are some who say we ignore only the parts that are not repeated in the New Testament. There are some, mostly Jewish Christians, who believe we are still bound to carrying out the ceremonial parts of the Law, but we are under Grace and not bound to carrying out the rest. There are all different views. My viewpoint, which I believe is the most balanced, is that the whole Law is beneficial, yet, because it was fulfilled we are not to treat it by what the definition of law requires. We do not throw it out, ignore it, or write it off as belonging to a different dispensation. It is very real to us and as holy as it was to Moses. We just are no longer under obligation to following it. It is no longer Law for us. Lets get into this.

The Yoke of the Law

First off, we need to think about what Law is. A law is a legally binding command that must be followed per the demands of society. When the Jews were given the Law via Moses, they were required to follow it. It was not simply a set of moral codes, or guiding principles for living. It was Law, they were obliged to following it as members of the nation of Israel.

Now a person was still saved by grace in OT times, nothing has changed in that regard. Jesus as the final atonement had not come yet, so they were however obliged to make weekly and yearly atonement for sins. This was also a part of the Law. When a man was justified by faith, whatever the object of his faith was, his justification was not bound to the keeping of the Law. I think this is one point that people kinda stumble on. We understand that the Jews were saved by faith through grace, but then when you combine it with the keeping of the Law, many end up with a view that Jews were able to lose their justification. Not so. The Law and especially the sacrificial system were designed to keep a person tied to the benefits of the Promises made to Israel. To those that were justified by faith, the keeping of the Law bound you to the people of Israel. It’s a difficult concept, I’m not going to go in depth. Just understand that a person did not lose their justification and were required to keep the Law in order to be in fellowship with the nation of Israel.

On the other hand, in order to be saved apart from any grace, one would have to be completely perfect. They would have to follow that law perfectly. Of course, no one can do that. So, the law becomes a "pointer outer" of our sin. It just shows us that we're guilty, but does nothing to save us from that sin that we're guilty of. Here's a good explanation of it that was posted on my friend Kevin Fiske's website,  www.kevinfiske.com.

When we get to the New Testament, we understand that through Christ the Law was fulfilled. Paul says that the yoke of the law has been put off (Rom 7:4; Gal 5:1). Does this mean that the Law has become worthless? Nope. What this means is that we are no longer legally obliged to carrying it out. With Christ as our eternal sacrifice and final atonement for sin, we can live our lives freely by grace. I no longer am obliged to making sacrifices for sins committed. I no longer need to worship at a temple. I no longer need a priest to make amends for me. All these things were summed up in Christ. He is our High Priest, he is our Temple, he is our Atonement. So then we can ignore the Law? No. Read on.

The Nature of Christianity: We Can’t Keep All Laws

This is pretty self-explanatory. People who accuse us of ignoring parts of the Bible haven’t really thought it through- to keep the whole of the Law of Moses requires a Temple. Christian theology aside, even if we were to try to keep the Law, it would be an impossibility. The upholding of the Mosaic Covenant requires a temple, or at the very least, the Tabernacle. We have neither. Either way, the veil was torn at Christ’s death, signifying his fulfillment of the sacrificial system. We have no need for a temple or sacrifices.

The Nature of Christianity: Law is Not a Requirement

We believe people are saved by grace through faith. That said, we have no requirement on us to do anything in order to be saved, or to continue on in salvation. So, even when we come to commands given in the Epistles in the New Testament, they are not in any way binding on us in the sense that we will fall out of favor with God. Once we are saved, it is a done deal, we cannot lose that. That is what it means to have the “righteous requirement” of the Law fulfilled. We no longer have an obligation to doing anything in order to either earn or keep our standing with God. “By grace you have been saved, through faith, and not of yourself.”

Why the Law is Still Relevant: Gnomic Truth vs. Absolute Truth

So, what use does the Law have for us? It is applicational to us as abiding moral principles. We don’t often hear the term ‘gnomic truth’ but this is what the Law is for us. It is no longer a code of demands upon us, but is a code of principles that may be applied to our lives in various ways. A gnomic truth is a principle, as opposed to an absolute truth. A good example of gnomic truth is the “contradiction” in Proverbs 26:4-5:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Why is this not a contradiction? Because they are not absolute truths. There are times to answer the fool, and times to hold your tongue. This is the essence of gnomic truth. Another example is when Jesus said,

So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.

And yet Christians sin. Once again, a gnomic truth. It is a principle, not absolute. This is how we are to look at the Law. What is the principle the individual commands are trying to convey? If my ox gores my neighbor I’m responsible for it. Well, I don’t own an ox so how does that relate to me? I have two nasty little Italian Greyhounds. Nuff said.

We could make application out of anything, and we’re not really limited in how we apply it either.

The Different Designations Within the Singular Law

Now to the big one, the reason we’re all reading this.

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

Kinda hard not to take that one literally isn’t it? So what’s the excuse? Sometimes the abiding principle is actually the literal command. That’s all there is to it. But, as the accusation goes, are we singling this command out like it’s a special command that we can’t ignore, but we ignore all the rest? What about the shellfish or the pork? Why “ignore” those, but not this? Well, are we really ignoring everything except this? Let’s do a survey of Leviticus 18 and 19, known as the Holiness Code:

“None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness” (Lev 18:6-18)

“You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.” (Lev 18:20) 

“You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech” (Lev 18:21a… ie, no child sacrifices) 

“…nor shall you profane the name of your God…” (Lev 18:21b)

“Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.” (Lev 18:23)

“You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.” (Lev 19:2)

“Every one of you shall reverence his mother and his father…” (Lev 19:3a)

“Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves molten gods…” (Lev 19:4)

“You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.” (Lev 19:11)

“You shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God.” (Lev 19:12)

I digress. I would have to list nearly the entirety of chapter 19 if I continued, so go read it for yourself. We are not ignoring things. Many of the laws given to Moses have direct application for us.

But that still doesn’t respond to the ones we do ignore. Certainly, as I said, there are some that have some kind of abiding principle that we can glean from. But what about the whole pork and shellfish thing? Or tattoos, or shaving the corners of your beard?

The Law is divided into three kinds of Laws; Ceremonial, Civil, and Moral. Ceremonial Laws have to do with the requirements of the Temple. We already dealt with that. Civil Laws have to do with the purity of the nation of Israel. There are many laws, like abstaining from pork, shellfish, or the dreaded rock badger, which have to do with distinguishing Israel from the other nations surrounding them. Tattoos, trimming the corners of your beard, mixing crops and fabrics, are all part of this. Think about the mixing crops or fabrics thing. If a Gentile approached a Jew and asked why they do such silly things, they have a ready-made answer; their clothing is pure because God is pure. God is not many, he is One. Quite a nice picture, isn’t it? Why didn’t they get tattoos? Because tattoos had to do with respect for the dead, in a religious sense. To the Jews, all honor and glory belongs to God; there is no ceremonial or superstitious honoring of the dead. They are dead. This belief stands in contradistinction to those in the countries around them. Why didn’t they eat pork? Well, who knows. All we know is that it was a Civil command given to them to set them apart. Maybe due to Trichinosis. Maybe not. Either way, I hope I’ve made my point. So, these kinds of Laws have specifically to do with the nation of Israel as they existed alongside other nations and religions. They are not directly applicational to us, but still may be used for secondary application within our daily lives.

Then there's the case of penal judgments for breaking commandments in the Law. Well, simply put, Israel is a country. They had people and leaders. The Law of Moses was the law, no different than our law. We have punishments for certain crimes, they had the same. That's how Law works. This fits into the Civil aspect of the Law and once again, does not apply to us, thankfully, or I would have been killed several times over for disrespecting my parents...

Now, this discussion doesn’t end here. We will pick up Leviticus 18:22 later when we get into Paul when we jump over to the New Testament passages. This passage, in the Greek Septuagint, is very important for understanding Paul’s teaching on homosexuality. If the passage in Leviticus isn’t relevant today, then Paul’s use of it is. We’ll get to that later.

To tie this up, I want you to think about Law, and the basis for Law. Why do we have so many problems in our Country these days? It is because our laws are arbitrary. In the beginning of our Country, the Laws were based on something higher- the Bible. The founding fathers understood that without a basis, without absolute truth, Law cannot be upheld. When culture becomes the basis for morality, you end up with the French Revolution. The Founding Fathers understood this fact, and based their Constitution and Bill of Rights on the fact that there is a God, that he has revealed himself to us, and he alone is the foundation of all morality. This sets Law as immovable. Nowadays, Law is based on social opinion. It has no basis except the ever-swaying, ever-changing views of society. All countries who have tried that have fallen. Mark my words: if we fully remove the basis for our morality, we will follow them in that fall.

Stay strong,

Mike

Jesus Does Not Believe in Homosexual Marriage...Really!

Genesis 2:18-24- "Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said,

 “This is now bone of my bones,

 And flesh of my flesh;

 She shall be called Woman,

 Because she was taken out of Man.”

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Today we'll actually be discussing the validity of the phrase "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." The phrase, when used, usually gets a roll of the eyes or possibly violent reaction. Most people just write it off completely and act like it has no logical validity. How wrong they are.

One of the things that is important to a few different issues is the order of creation. Topics involving the creator/creature relationship, husband/wife relationship, man/animal relationship, and idolatry, all are founded on the actual order of how things were created. Paul makes specific reference to it in 1 Corinthians 11 in God's authority over man, and man's authority over women. Paul infers it in Romans 1:18-32 in talking about sin and man's fallen nature, a text which we'll get to eventually. In the case of Genesis 2:20-24, Jesus actually is its interpreter in regards to the definition of marraige. We'll get to that in a second, let's look at the passage itself first.

First off, this passage is almost never referred to in conversations about homosexuality by homosexuals. Most discussions go only to passages that directly refer to it, and pass over what is probably the most important passage on it in the Bible, and more so because Jesus interprets it in Matthew 19. The importance of this passage is to the topic is that there is a reason for why homosexuality is defined as a perversion, because God did not create man or woman to operate that way. So, homosexual marriage advocates won't reference it due to the fact that it is the pivotal argument about even the plain old existence of homosexual marriage.

So, let's get started.

“It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

What does it mean to be "a suitable helper" for man? We need to look at Man in creation first. When God created Man, He created him as he was supposed to be. The fact that God looks down on creation as "good" means that the order of the cosmos is exactly as God intended it. Man, before the fall, was exactly as he was intended to be, in the perfection of creation. The homosexual agenda will start off any conversation on this subject with the assertion that Eve was a suitable helper because Adam was heterosexual. Well, of course. On the other hand, they will state that if Adam was created homosexual, a man would have been a suitable helper, not a woman. Right here is where we need to put on our thinking caps. While it is good to sometimes look at what may have been from a hypothetical viewpoint, when it comes to things that have already occurred, you cannot ignore the plain facts. The fact of the matter is, God created Adam heterosexual and declared it as "good." The word "good" in Hebrew is the word "tob" and has the idea of "pleasure." When something is pleasing in the eyes of God, it means that the pleasing thing correlates to God's very nature. What that means is that heterosexuality in itself is holy, and is the proper order for nature.

Back to "suitable." Why was Eve "suitable?" Look at the animals. God doesn't create a male first, then a female out of the male. He creates each "after its own kind" and all at the same time. This is the context. When the animals are brought before Adam for a name, what is the inference? It is that there are two kinds of each kind, a male and a female. They are able to reproduce. Look at the birds and fish, for instance. In 1:22, God tells them "to be fruitful and multiply." Obviously, they can't reproduce without male and female, and they're created before man. So, in 2:19 when man sees them, the sexes were distinguished. So, if 2:18 is the beginning of the paragraph, then 2:19 is the context. Why weren't the animals suitable helpers to man? Because he couldn't mate with them. Why was Eve suitable? Because only with her could he "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Even if Adam was created homosexual, he would not have been able to mate, and therefore a male still would have been unsuitable.

Let's stop and think about contradicting arguments. It has been levied against homosexual apologists that they like to pile arguments on top of each other without thinking through the fact that the multiple arguments are all in contradiction to each other. The argument they usually use in reference to Romans 1:24-26 is that the people there were naturally heterosexual, but were taking part in homosexual activity, and therefore were "against nature." But let's think that through in this case. If Adam was created homosexual (hypothetically), and he could only multiply with a female, then wouldn't Adam be sinning if he were to be fruitful and multiply as a homosexual? Its an odd scenario, but I think it proves my point. Let's jump down a bit.

“This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Why will the two become one flesh? Remember hermeneutics- context. What does the context say? "For this reason." What reason? "This is now bone of my bones... she was taken out of Man." So, the all-important question when it comes to homosexual "marriage"- Can a man and a man become "one flesh" with each other? The answer is an abounding no. The reason that homosexual marriage is a complete farce is because man did not come from the very flesh of man. Only woman holds that claim. Woman is meant for man because she is his compliment; she works with him because she is from him. When a man and a woman are united in sexual intercourse as the result of a marriage, they become one flesh because the rib is reunited with its body. This all sounds good, but is it accurate? Let's look at what Jesus Himself has to say.

Matthew 19:3-9- Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Now, look at how Jesus interprets this passage. A slightly different take than mine, but to the same point. He directly uses the creation order as the reason for male-female marriage. In the original passage, the reason that "they shall become one flesh..." is that "She was taken out of man." Jesus instead ties it to the larger context, that God "made them male and female." So, coming full circle, we ask the question: "Why is homosexual 'marriage' unbiblical and a sin?" Because God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Its kinda amusing to look at it that way. Such a trite statement, and yet so theologically accurate. Jesus cites the creation order as the reason marriage is defined as "a union between one man and one woman for life."

So, Christian, what is your stance on homosexual marriage politically? Do you wish to see homosexuals happy? Do you wish to bring homosexuals together in loving relationships? Then you are directly going against what Christ taught about marriage. You are defining it differently than how Christ did, and are standing in direct opposition to the teachings of our Lord and Savior on the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is God-instituted, and therefore only He is qualified to define it.

I want to add, on a personal note, that I'm not coming up with these interpretations. They've been around for a long time, much longer than I have. There are men much smarter and more competent than I am that use these same arguments ably. That said, the homosexual position is nothing new. There is nothing said that hasn't already been said. The position has always been the same- stand against homosexuality or throw away your Bible. The homosexual position has been proven time and time again to be unbiblical, and therefore, those who support it stand against their own Scripture.

Simply put- there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. If it doesn't exist, then you can't support it. So don't.

Keep up the fight,

Mike