Posted on 02/03/2018 4:03:21 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits, or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because “they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey.” Most often I hear, “Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts—about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn homosexuality. Aren’t you just picking and choosing what you want to believe from the Bible?”
I don’t expect everyone to understand that the whole Bible is about Jesus and God’s plan to redeem his people, but I vainly hope that one day someone will access their common sense (or at least talk to an informed theological adviser) before leveling the charge of inconsistency.
First, it’s not only the Old Testament that has proscriptions about homosexuality. The New Testament has plenty to say about it as well. Even Jesus says, in his discussion of divorce in Matthew 19:3–12, that the original design of God was for one man and one woman to be united as one flesh, and failing that (v. 12), persons should abstain from marriage and sex.
However, let’s get back to considering the larger issue of inconsistency regarding things mentioned in the Old Testament no longer practiced by the New Testament people of God. Most Christians don’t know what to say when confronted about this issue. Here’s a short course on the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament.
The Old Testament devotes a good amount of space to describing the various sacrifices offered in the tabernacle (and later temple) to atone for sin so that worshipers could approach a holy God. There was also a complex set of rules for ceremonial purity and cleanness. You could only approach God in worship if you ate certain foods and not others, wore certain forms of dress, refrained from touching a variety of objects, and so on. This vividly conveyed, over and over, that human beings are spiritually unclean and can’t go into God’s presence without purification.
But even in the Old Testament, many writers hinted that the sacrifices and the temple worship regulations pointed forward to something beyond them (cf. 1 Sam. 15:21–22; Pss. 50:12–15; 51:17; Hos. 6:6). When Christ appeared he declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), and he ignored the Old Testament cleanliness laws in other ways, touching lepers and dead bodies.
The reason is clear. When he died on the cross the veil in the temple tore, showing that he had done away with the the need for the entire sacrificial system with all its cleanliness laws. Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin, and now Jesus makes us clean.
The entire book of Hebrews explains that the Old Testament ceremonial laws were not so much abolished as fulfilled by Christ. Whenever we pray “in Jesus name” we “have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:19). It would, therefore, be deeply inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible as a whole if we continued to follow the ceremonial laws.
Law Still Binding
The New Testament gives us further guidance about how to read the Old Testament. Paul makes it clear in places like Romans 13:8ff that the apostles understood the Old Testament moral law to still be binding on us. In short, the coming of Christ changed how we worship, but not how we live. The moral law outlines God’s own character—his integrity, love, and faithfulness. And so everything the Old Testament says about loving our neighbor, caring for the poor, generosity with our possessions, social relationships, and commitment to our family is still in force. The New Testament continues to forbid killing or committing adultery, and all the sex ethic of the Old Testament is re-stated throughout the New Testament (Matt. 5:27–30; 1 Cor. 6:9–20; 1 Tim. 1:8–11). If the New Testament has reaffirmed a commandment, then it is still in force for us today.
The New Testament explains another change between the testaments. Sins continue to be sins—but the penalties change. In the Old Testament sins like adultery or incest were punishable with civil sanctions like execution. This is because at that time God’s people constituted a nation-state, and so all sins had civil penalties.
But in the New Testament the people of God are an assembly of churches all over the world, living under many different governments. The church is not a civil government, and so sins are dealt with by exhortation and, at worst, exclusion from membership. This is how Paul deals with a case of incest in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 5:1ff. and 2 Cor. 2:7–11). Why this change? Under Christ, the gospel is not confined to a single nation—it has been released to go into all cultures and peoples.
Once you grant the main premise of the Bible—about the surpassing significance of Christ and his salvation—then all the various parts of the Bible make sense. Because of Christ, the ceremonial law is repealed. Because of Christ, the church is no longer a nation-state imposing civil penalties. It all falls into place. However, if you reject the idea of Christ as Son of God and Savior, then, of course, the Bible is at best a mishmash containing some inspiration and wisdom, but most of it would have to be rejected as foolish or erroneous.
So where does this leave us? There are only two possibilities. If Christ is God, then this way of reading the Bible makes sense. The other possibility is that you reject Christianity’s basic thesis—you don’t believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God—and then the Bible is no sure guide for you about much of anything. But you can’t say in fairness that Christians are being inconsistent with their beliefs to follow the moral statements in the Old Testament while not practicing the other ones.
One way to respond to the charge of inconsistency may be to ask a counter-question: “Are you asking me to deny the very heart of my Christian beliefs?” If you are asked, “Why do you say that?” you could respond, “If I believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God, I can’t follow all the ‘clean laws’ of diet and practice, and I can’t offer animal sacrifices. All that would be to deny the power of Christ’s death on the cross. And so those who really believe in Christ must follow some Old Testament texts and not others.”
The organization, though started by good men, seems to have become increasingly enamored with the social liberalism.
There are still good elements, but use discernment.
This article is one of the good ones...note, however, it is a few years old.
“This article is one of the good ones”
Tim Keller, the author of the article, is indeed one of the good ones. He has very good Bible studies if you want to look them up.
Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:22-29
These are the basic moral laws that Christian Gentiles are to follow.
You might notice that sexual laws are mentioned while other laws are not.
It is written out very clearly and yet, for some reason you would think it was an obscure and convoluted bit of scripture.
This is kind of a "Christianity 101" that isn't taught real often in churches. It should be. A whole lot of non-Christians love to use these supposed "inconsistencies" to bash the Bible and Christians. They plainly have no idea what they're talking about, but too many Christians aren't equipped with proper Biblical knowledge to confront the lies.
My heavens, that's the most irresistible Free Republic title ever.
LOL.
I learned a lot from messianic Jews. This article has some good points, but saying the penalty for adultery was a civil and not religious remedy under the Old Testament is bunk.
Jesus lived under the Old Testament, as did the last OT prophet, John the Baptist.
The New Covenant or New Testament didn't begin until after the Cross, when the Holy Spirit was poured out on all mankind at Pentecost.
And that's why Mary was in the upper room when the Holy Spirit fell, along with the other disciples.
But to say that adultery and other sins were civil punishments is bunk...
Again, the Jews stoned Stephen, and tried to stone the woman caught in adultery , tried to stone Jesus, etc...
Weird article that needs absolute correction by actual Christians...
It helps to know when He is speaking to the Jew and when He is addressing the church - it’s called ‘rightly dividing the word of truth’
The laws about depraved sex acts all just say, "It is an abomination", as in, an objective, universal fact.
Well, Peter and Paul clarified that gentiles (they would not have called us goyim, that is a Talmudic curse on gentiles, btw) were not under dietary and other non essential laws, but were to adhere to laws about sexuality.
Chrstians have brought this on themselves.
If you read the whole chapter you find that all of the apostles and elders were united in this teaching.
But if you read this article you will not find one mention of Acts 15 in it.
And if you read another dozen articles about this issue it is doubtful even one will mention it.
It is like the book does not exist.
Is it because it is too clear?
“Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat. I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth. “The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
Acts, 11:7-9
God, Himself set aside the dietary laws
“Your Word is Truth, and every one of your righteous statutes is everlasting.” Psalm 119:160.
“Think not that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you that until Heaven and earth pass away not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law till all is fulfilled.” Matthew 5:17-18.
The Torah, all of it, is still in effect, and must be observed, especially by those who claim to be the Talmidim (disciples) of Yeshua (Jesus). John tells us in his revered letter “He who says that he abides in Him ought himself to walk even as He walked.” 1 John 2:6
How did Yeshua walk? He walked in perfect, yes Perfect Observance of all of the Torah; every jot and tittle. See his statement above in Matthew.
The Torah is A living fire! It is Life! And it is Eternal. Now go and learn what this means!
Of course.
But Peter had to relate the story for posterity... and Paul confirmed.
This is just plain wrong. This vision came to Peter 14 years after Pentecost!
What took him so long? Didn’t he actually walk and live with Yeshua? He says “Nothing unclean has ever entered my mouth.” Peter was stunned and perplexed. But as he was trying to figure it out men came to invite him to the house of Cornelius. Peter goes there and teaches them Yeshua, and as he does the Ruach HaKodesh falls on them “as it did on us” (the Jews). And suddenly Peter and his astonished friends realize that “G-d is no respecter of persons, but every nation that works righteousness (i.e. Keeps Torah) is accepted by Him.” The vision was not about food! G-d was using the unimaginable idea of eating unclean food to break the ancient Jewish exclusion of Gentiles from the Covenant. The commandments are forever. Get used to it. Not one of them is going away.
They would have referred to the conclusions of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, which they both attended.
I was just pointing out that the restricted application of the dietary laws was in view from the outset, as was the universal sanction against porneia.
And "goyim" is the normal Hebrew word for "nations" in the Tanakh. It's not necessarily a curse. The word Peter and Paul used on the written record was ethne, which is Greek. (What they used at home I can't say, since I never learned Aramaic.)
The authority of Peter and Paul’s writings as the actual Word of God is what I was referring to...
That’s neat you know the languages, and it is interesting that the strange rituals of the Talmudic mindset altered all of these terms, because gentiles who believed in Christ were now grafted into the vine.
And the Holy Spirit which once was behind the Veil in the Temple, was now poured out on all His “maidservants and menservants” as per the prophet Joel, at Pentecost.
Good comments but consider this: There is no such thing as “The Old Testament”. Who died? G-d? The used of the term is for one’s Last Will and Testament. The use of that term connotes that the Torah is old, dusty, and belongs in a museum. This is deceptive and untrue. As for the term “New Testament” the same holds true. There is a “New Covenant” not a new testament. And this New Covenant is defined by the Bible in Jeremiah 31:31: “And this is the new covenant that I shall make with the House of Israel. In those days I will write the words of my Torah upon their hearts. And they will all know me”. You should really study and walk out the Torah, and you too can partake of the only New Covenant that can be found in the Bible.
great expository
The Shellfish/Mixed Fiber Gambit reminds me of a quip of Solomon’s:
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him;
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.”
Proverbs 26
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.