Dear Christian, Do You Really Obey God?

8 Replies

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17:18

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus did not come to destroy the law. In fact, until heaven and earth are destroyed not one word of the law shall pass away.  Some Christians like to say, but, but, but, this verse says that Jesus came to fulfill the law. Yes, it does, but notice what else it says……..that the law will not pass until ALL BE FULFILLED.

Has everything been fulfilled? Of course not. Jesus is coming back. Judgment is coming. God plans to make a new heaven and earth. So, no , everything has NOT been fulfilled.

Christians are obligated to keep the law. It is God’s law, Yes?  Many Christians are quite schizophrenic when it comes to God’s law. They pick and choose what they want to obey. Oh they have all kinds of explanations for why they do or don’t keep this or that law. Rarely do they mention Matthew 5:17,18.

A good Christian is a keeper of God’s law. What follows are 76 laws from the Book of Leviticus that every Christian should be obeying. In this list are laws most every Christians obeys. Why obey only some of them? Are some of the laws more God’s laws than others?  Did God only really, really, really mean some of them but not others?  Surely, the Christian must know they look quite hypocritical if they don’t obey ALL of God’s laws.

Banned by the Bible has put together a list of 76 laws from the Book of Leviticus:

Here’s chapter and verse on a more-or-less comprehensive list of things banned in the Leviticus book of the bible. A decent number of them are punishable by death.

Unless you’ve never done any of them (and 54 to 56 are particularly tricky), perhaps it’s time to lay off quoting 18:22 for a while?

  1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
  2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)
  3. Eating fat (3:17)
  4. Eating blood (3:17)
  5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)
  6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)
  7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2)
  8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4)
  9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)
  10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)
  11. Bringing unauthorized fire before God (10:1)
  12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
  13. Tearing your clothes (10:6)
  14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9)
  15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)
  16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8)
  17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)
  18. Eating – or touching the carcass of–eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)
  19. Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)
  20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)
  21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)
  22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)
  23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
  24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
  25. Having sex with your mother (18:7)
  26. Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8)
  27. Having sex with your sister (18:9)
  28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)
  29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)
  30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)
  31. Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)
  32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)
  33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)
  34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (18:17)
  35. Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)
  36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)
  37. Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)
  38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)
  39. Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)
  40. Having sex with an animal (18:23)
  41. Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)
  42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)
  43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
  44. Stealing (19:11)
  45. Lying (19:11)
  46. Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)
  47. Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)
  48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13)
  49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)
  50. Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)
  51. Spreading slander (19:16)
  52. Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16)
  53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)
  54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)
  55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19)
  56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)
  57. Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20)
  58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
  59. Practicing divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)
  60. Trimming your beard (19:27)
  61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
  62. Getting tattoos (19:28)
  63. Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)
  64. Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)
  65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
  66. Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” (19:33-34)
  67. Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)
  68. Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)
  69. Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)
  70. Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)
  71. Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)
  72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
  73. Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)
  74. Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22
  75. Selling land permanently (25:23)
  76. Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42)

8 thoughts on “Dear Christian, Do You Really Obey God?”

  3. Michael Heady

    I know this article was written awhile ago, but I’ve seen the claim that Jesus did not change or destroy the law a few times recently and would like to respond to it here. The other places I’ve seen it were discussions of some newspaper articles. Most of those discussions seem more like name-calling arguments and I don’t want to engage in that. This blog seems like a better place, hopefully, to give my response.

    If I understand it correctly, the idea is that since Christians believe the whole Bible is the word of God, including the Old Testament law, then we should be still obeying each of the rules because Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and not abolish or destroy it. The criticism is that we are not being consistent with what we say we believe. A whole book could be written on this but I’ll try to be brief.

    My first answer is that the law of Moses was given only to the nation of Israel (and only then temporarily – more later), never to a Gentile people or nation. So those of us who are Gentiles were never under the Mosaic law. The covenant with God in Christ is based on the Abrahamic covenant (Galatians 3:14-18), not the covenant made through Moses with Israel.

    Secondly, we know that Jesus did change some of the specific regulations, even for the Jews who were his followers. See Mark 7:14-23, specifically verse 19. That must have been a total shock to their minds, but it showed them that the law as they knew it was not permanent. It opened the door for them to accept other changes (see Acts 10, for example).

    Thirdly, the law was fulfilled therefore it is no longer operational. The statements of Jesus about him not abolishing the law (and prophets) but fulfilling them and not the smallest letter of the law would disappear until everything is accomplished is found in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7. It’s important to not pull those specific verses out of the whole sermon and separate them from the point of the sermon, which I think is how to be a new kind of person living in the kingdom of God. Jesus went on to say something like “you have heard it said (in the law)…but I say…” six times about specific laws. He went deeper than outward actions that law can regulate to issues of the inner person like hatred and lust and revenge, which law cannot do anything about. So he was saying those who follow him will become a new kind of people in his kingdom. The law of Moses had a specific purpose, and it wasn’t how to live as a new kind of person. When that purpose was completed it meant it was fulfilled and everything it was supposed to do was accomplished, so it was no longer operational. The law was never intended to be permanent.

    Christianity is not merely the continuation of Old Testament religion but now with a Savior. Jesus and, in time, the apostles taught that there have been real and significant changes as a result of the Incarnation and Passion of Christ. I don’t think anyone can really “get” Christianity without understanding, exploring, and applying that.

    Reply ↓
    1. Bruce Gerencser Post author

      Your theory applies only if you accept that there is a discontinuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament, a view that many Christians and denominations reject. (and one that I rejected when I was a pastor)

      Since the law only applied to ethnic Israel, then the majority of the human race are under no law at all, is that your contention? Are you also saying that the Ten Commandments were also only binding on ethnic Israel and are not binding on anyone else?

      How could Jesus have changed the law while he was still alive? Wasn’t the Old Covenant in full force until the death and resurrection of Jesus? (again arguing from your viewpoint)

      I stand by my comments on Matthew 5:17-19. My exegesis is consistent with the text. You force the text to fit your New Covenant theology rather than letting it speak for itself. Christians are constantly told that they, with guidance from the Holy Spirit, can clearly understand the Bible. Would such a person naturally come to the conclusions you have about the law and its relationship to Christianity? I doubt it. New Covenant theology, like all other systematic theologies are complex systems that take the Scripture and try to force them into a systematic, harmonious system. To do so, they must eliminate any contradictions to the system and massage the text to fit the system.

      Matthew 5:17-19 says: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
      For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

      It seems quite clear that Jesus is saying that he did not come to destroy the law OR the prophets. He came to fulfill it and not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away until ALL be fulfilled.

      What law did Jesus mean? Couldn’t have been the NT because it had not been written. He was talking about OT law, a Holy law given to a covenant people by a Holy God, through a Holy prophet named Moses. If God is perfect in all his works, why would he give a law that was imperfect, temporary, and inapplicable to 99% of the human race? Seems like a lot of work for so little of a return.

      Personally, I am of the opinion that the Bible is a contradictory book that says many things about the law. Better to let the contradictions stand than try to make the text say something it doesn’t say.

      Of course the biggest problem in all of this is the word law itself. It is used to describe many different things and it is impossible to know exactly what is meant when the word law is used. Thus, the word law means whatever a peculiar systematic theology says it means. Why should we accept your interpretation as the correct one? This is a question I ask Christians frequently on this blog, a question none of them answer. Why should your interpretation be set above the interpretation of millions of other Christians who totally disagree with your interpretation?

      Reply ↓
  4. Michael Heady

    Bruce, thanks for your response. Please don’t try to tell me why I believe something by saying that I force the text to fit my New Covenant theology. I assure you that I am not starting with a system of theology and interpreting Scripture by it. I know there is a system of theology called New Covenant theology but I have not delved into it, much less adopted it. You don’t know how I came to my conclusions. You have asked people to not try to explain your decision to adopt atheism; I ask for the same courtesy.

    There are several statements in the New Testament showing that the Gentiles are not under the Old Testament law: Romans 2:14, Galatians 2:14, Ephesians 2:11-12.

    There’s no doubt that Jesus did change the law. What else could Mark 7:19 mean – “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.” If there is some way to understand this other than the straightforward meaning that Jesus changed the laws about what foods are and are not allowed, please explain that to me. I did not say that the Old Covenant was in full force until the death and resurrection of Jesus. The transition from Old to New began with Jesus’ first message: “The time has come. The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15) Christ’s death and resurrection completed the transition.

    When you say (quoting from Matthew) that Jesus “fulfilled” the law, what does that word fulfill actually mean? What did he do that can be described as fulfilling the law?

    If God intended the law he gave to Israel to be permanent, why did he say he was going to make a new, different covenant? “The days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt…” (Jeremiah 31:31-32)

    In time, the first followers of Jesus came to believe that the Old Testament law given to Israel was no longer binding (Acts 10:27-28, Acts 15:5-11, Galatians 3:23-25, Hebrews 10:1). If they understood Jesus’ teachings and his death and resurrection to mean this, who are we to interpret it differently?

    Reply ↓
    1. Bruce Gerencser Post author

      Look,your theology is consistent with New Covenant theology. Are you suggesting you came to your complex, systematic theological beliefs apart from any influence? If so, you are a first. But, I will not label you further.

      Before you can state we are not under the law you must define the word law and show how we can know the when the word law is used it means the definition you give it. The reason there is some many beliefs about the law is that it is impossible to come to a clear definition of the word law, particularly since the word law can mean:

      1. All the laws found in the Bible
      2. The ten commandments
      3. The commands of Christ
      4. The moral law
      5. The ceremonial law
      6. The judicial law

      So the New Covenant begins with the preaching of Jesus? What about John’s preaching? I thought the New Covenant required the death of the testator. Jesus had not yet died so the New Covenant could not have been in force. If the New Covenant was in force, why did Jesus and his disciples worship in the Temple and follow the rituals of the Old Covenant? Even after the death and resurrection of Jesus it seems that Peter, the rock upon which the church was built, didn’t get the memo. He sided with those thought circumcision was required for salvation.

      Fulfill means satisfied, brought to completion. Look at the verses. They say until ALL be fulfilled. Has everything been fulfilled? No. Jesus has yet to return and God has yet to make a new heaven and a new earth. Note that the passage says that the law will remain in force til heaven and earth pass away. Again, that has not yet been fulfilled.

      You mention in Jeremiah 31 that God speaks of making a New Covenant? Here’s the problem. He makes the New Covenant with Israel and Judah and not with Gentiles. (and yes I know how you will attempt to resolve this difficulty. I am taking the text as it is written and not forcing it through a particular interpretive grid)

      We don’t know how the early Christians interpreted the law of the Old Covenant. All we have is what some writer who wrote many years after the fact says about them. I understand your approach to Scripture but I don’t approach the Bible the same way. ( I am an Ehrmanite, after all)

      I am of the opinion that the Bible is a hopelessly convoluted and contradictory book. Christians through systematics and hermeneutics try to make everything fit. I think this is an exercise in futility. When I read the Bible I let every author stand on his own. I have no need to harmonize the Scripture. This is why I think if you read the Bible as I do that you come away with the belief that there are multiple Christianities in the New Testament and these Christianities are diametrically opposed to each other. i.e. Paul’s faith alone salvation and James’s faith plus works salvation.

      Please remember, I don’t believe any of this. I enjoy the discussion but I don’t believe what we are discussing is in any way truth. I haven’t studied these issues in years, so I am operating on what I have retained from years in the pastorate. As a pastor, I believed there was a continuity between the Old and New Covenant and that the law, rightly interpreted was in full force.

      Not sure what else I can say on this subject.

      Bruce

      Reply ↓
  5. Michael Heady

    Well, nobody has ever accused me of having complex beliefs! So thanks. I have not studied specifically New Covenant theology as a system, but of course I’ve been influenced.

    By “law” for this discussion I’m going off your original post which I took to mean the entire law given to Israel.

    The transition to the New Covenant began with Jesus’ preaching and continued through his ministry then was actually put in place by his death/resurrection. I don’t see how it could have worked for there to have been no teaching and preparation for the change then suddenly those Jewish get told by the risen Christ “Oh, by the way, now there’s a new covenant. Bye.” And there was a learning process for the disciples (like Peter). They didn’t get it all at once. They were living real lives and as the lived out their faith they learned more and more what had happened in and by Christ.

    Taking “fulfilled” in the context of the entire Sermon on the Mount, the way I see it is Jesus completed the law by teaching about the underlying attitudes and mindsets that produce the outward actions. His “you have heard it said…but I say…” Those have not disappeared. But the old covenant with it’s rules and regulations has (Hebrews 8:13).

    Again, Jesus did change the law – Mark 7:19. In that entire section Jesus is saying it’s not what you do outwardly that makes a man evil; it’s on the inside. So the food laws were eliminated and people had to start dealing with what’s going on in their hearts instead of which food they could eat and still be clean.

    I understand your perspective on the Bible and your belief stance. It’s just that you asked if Christians are really obeying God by following all those regulations. This is my answer – we don’t have to. Actually we have to do something a lot harder – love God and love other people – and no we’re not doing a very good job of that.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply