Anyone who has ever read the Old Testament knows there’s a lot of laws listed in those books– over 600 to be exact.
In many circles of Christianity there’s often much debate as to what degree, if any, a Christian ought live by these laws.
In the past when I have suggested that Christians are not obligated to abide by any of these laws at all, commenters will often quickly object, saying that “Jesus didn’t abolish the law.” While that fact is true (I’ve explained that, here), when pressed harder most of these Christians will admit that, no, not all of the Old Testament laws are to be followed today. After all, there’s the prohibition on bacon, shellfish, and wearing a cotton/polyester blend worked into those laws, which rarely even the most conservative fundamentalist will abide by.
In this way, using the OT law almost becomes a game with shifting rules and sinister strategy. It goes something like this:
A: “The Bible says gays are an abomination, and Jesus didn’t abolish the law!”
B: “Um. Ok. You do realize that it calls people who work in banks an abomination, that there’s that whole long list of tasty foods you’re not allowed to eat, and that you’re not supposed to cut your sideburns, right?”
A: “You’re misusing scripture! Those laws were just for Israel at that time for different reasons.”
B: “Wait- so you’re telling me Jesus didn’t abolish the law, that the OT law still stands, but that the prohibited stuff you like to do doesn’t apply anymore. How does that work?”
A: “See, this proves how meaningless your college degrees are. If you had a true education you’d know that the laws are separated into categories– ceremonial, civil, and moral. The first two categories we don’t have to obey, but the third one we still do.”
And that’s how the conversation goes, over and over again.
When pressed about OT laws they will claim the argument of categories where one category still applies, but the others do not. Here’s how they describe those classifications:
“Ceremonial Law: This type of law related to Israel’s worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, to worship and love God, still apply.
Civil Law: This law dictated Israel’s daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are to guide our conduct.
Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.”
But there’s a few problems with this line of argumentation.
First and foremost, the Old Testament itself does not separate the laws into categories– these categories are modern ways to try to understand and compartmentalize a rather large system of ancient laws. If the biblical authors had intended there to be clear-cut categories, that’s probably how we would find the law written– but it’s not. There’s not a book of ceremonial law followed by a book of moral laws. How can we know for sure which law belonged in which category? We can’t, because the Bible doesn’t tell us.
While developing systems of classification can be helpful, they are our classifications, not the Bible’s.
Additionally, even if the laws were cleanly separated into categories, no where in the Bible does it say “these two categories of OT law are not to be followed anymore, but this one category does still apply.” That’s now how NT writers viewed OT laws.
Finally, and I find this one the most tragic and amusing: classifying OT laws into categories, where only one category still applies, invites one to be ridiculously self-serving. Case in point, I was looking at how the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry website dealt with these categories and noted the following: laws about oppressing the poor are conveniently listed as “civil” instead of “moral”, while they were sure to list things like homosexuality under moral category.
What makes denying personal charity, and refusing to feed the hungry, something that falls outside the realm of morality? Or, if civil laws govern relationships between people, as their website claims, why then would sexual behavior be listed in the moral category and not the civil category that governs relationships?
The reality is that separating OT laws into categories may be helpful in understanding how these laws impacted this ancient culture. However, when we separate them into categories for the purposes of determining which ones we are still required to obey, and which ones we are not, we will find ourselves inclined to subconsciously do this in a way that is charitable to ourselves, and condemning to others.
Old Testament laws, while impacting different areas of life, were not meant to be neatly sorted and selectively applied– certainly not so in the modern age.
The good news? Well, if you’re a Christian you’ve invited to follow Jesus and to model your life after him– so there’s no need to figure out OT law, since a Christian is under the law of Christ.
Follow BLC:
62 Responses
NAITbQUDFOu
I don’t think the title of your article matches the content lol. Just kidding, mainly because I had some doubts after reading the article.
On the one hand, I grant of course that understanding & categorizing OT laws is complex, and fraught with the possibility of self-serving interpretations. And any simplistic, obvious solve-all solution will prove problematic.
On the other hand, someone who can’t tell that there is a clear, unambiguous category difference between God commanding “put the bronze basin between the tent of meeting and the altar” and God commanding “you shall not commit murder” isn’t making much of an effort to understand those nuances and differences which are obvious enough as to be unmistakable.
The civil and ceremonial laws were fulfilled with Christ’s blood, the moral law we are still under today. There were two types of law in the Old testament the ones written on parchment by Moses and placed beside the ark(the civil and ceremonial laws) and the ten commandments which were written in stone by the finger of God and placed inside the ark of the covenant. The reason the civil and ceremonial laws were not placed inside the ark was because they were only for a time. The ten commandments were written in stone by the finger of God and placed inside the ark to show that they would stand for eternity. That is the difference between the two.
I find Levitical laws amusing as they relate to modern Xtians. No man with a defect in his eyes or genitals is allowed to even approach the altar in Leviticus. How many Xtian preachers you know wear glasses and have prostate issues and are standing behind the pulpit near or on the altar? Xtians cherry pick the Bible because they must if they want to hold on to their bigotry.
Were’t Levitical laws those specially applied to the Levites, the Priestly class, not neccesarily applicable to the general congregation? It makes sense that the Levites, the Priests, would be held to a higher standard. Note in your selected example, of no man with a defect being allowed to even approach the altar in Leviticus. The only men that were allowed to approach the altar at all were the Levite Priests, so that makes these restriction moot for any man not of Levite family.
I’d suggest asking which they think the no blended fabrics one was. Then make the case to them that it was in fact a moral law, on account of blended fabric garments needing a lot more fabric, which would lead to people not having enough clothes. You can make a moral case for declaring seafood an abomination, too, because people would just flat out die from eating it, even if they had eaten it lots before.(allergies are complicated) Also ask how banks being abominations is civil or ceremonial.
I
read this article and found myself thinking, this guy doesn’t seem to
realize that this issue is very well addressed in Acts 15. IN the
Jerusalem Council, as it has come to be known, the Apostles and leaders
of the church came together to decide if the gentile converts had to
keep the law of Moses or not. In the end, by the guiding of the Holy
Spirit, they tell new believers to keep four parts of the Old Testament
code. Acts 15:19-20 19 “Therefore it is my judgment
that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the
Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them
that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from
fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
In the end of Acts 15 we find that the whole council agrees that the Holy Spirit has led James
to say this and they approve this and send it to the gentile believers
as part of how we as believers are to live.
It
really bothers some people to think that we as New Testaments followers
of Jesus are under 4 elements of the Law of Moses, and yet that is what
the Holy Spirit led them to do. One note, at the time of this council
(49 AD) the book of James is the only New Testament book written. (Galatians is written
either 49-50AD but we don’t know for sure if it comes before or after the
council) So where do these believers go to find out about, as the Greek
puts it, “ho pornea?” (Lit. the sexual sin {NASB fornication in Acts 15:20}) They all went to Leveticus 18 and 20 because that is where those things were addressed in
scripture. Sadly, in the end this article shows how important it is
that those who try to teach others must really, and deeply know the Word of
God and the history that surrounds it. I know that I still have much,
much more to learn myself, but this is not a hard objection to answer from the Bible. In love, I challenge this author to take the words of Paul to Timothy seriously, “…study to show yourself approved and worker who rightly divides the Word of truth.” To write an article and leave out the main New Testament passage dealing with this topic does not seem to be taking this charge very seriously…
“Case in point, I was looking at how the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry website dealt with these categories and noted the following: laws about oppressing the poor are conveniently listed as “civil” instead of “moral”, while they were sure to list things like homosexuality under moral category.
What makes denying personal charity, and refusing to feed the hungry, something that falls outside the realm of morality? Or, if civil laws govern relationships between people, as their website claims, why then would sexual behavior be listed in the moral category and not the civil category that governs relationships?”
Yeah, that’s CARM for ya. See also: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiveamerican/2017/03/ayn-rand-not-jesus-moral-guide-todays-republican-party/
Thanks so much. I never questioned the evangelical category argument.
Dont assume all evangelicals would use that argument. I dont. It seems clear to me that Christians, whether Jewish or Gentile, are not under the Old Testament ‘Law’, and noone is ‘saved’ by it. But that does not mean the Law is irrelevant. Undoubtedly parts of it were only relevant to Israel at a particular point in time, but that does not mean that none of it is relevant today. To take an example, the Law says ‘You shall not murder’. I think most people would agree that ‘law’ is still valid today, in all societies at all times. As Ben says, as Christians we are under the ‘law of Christ’, and in truth that spells freedom. But not freedom to sin.
I’ve asked for years to see the specific memo detailing which Old Testament laws apply and which don’t. No one seems to have a copy. I hate it when I lose important documents, don’t you:-)
Seriously, how awful is it that taking care of orphans and sick or disabled people is dismissed as a “civil” matter with no moral overtones? How can anyone come to the objective conclusion that it’s more moral to outlaw some marriages than to be sure sick people get medical care?
Oh, and isn’t there something about “not adding or subtracting anything from Scripture” that is a big deal to most conservative theologians? How is inventing categories for Old Testament laws that exist nowhere in those laws not adding something?
They probably left them in the same place as the plans to demolish earth to make way for a new hyperspace bypass.
If you actually check the link, the “civil” classification gets even worse. Other laws that are considered “civil” include laws against hating your neighbor, laws against kidnapping, human trafficking, and murder, and laws against theft and lying. Apparently none of those laws are considered “moral” laws.
We actually can thank good ol’ Thomas Aquinas for those divisions.
I’ve always wondered where the Sabbath observance laws should go.
Rest and relaxation at least once a week to be with the Family (Father, Son and all the little children of God) sharing in the Spirit of peace and joy.
The law is the covenant between God and Israel. Nobody “abolished” it, it was never superceded: it never applied to non-Jews in the first place. A splendid irony is that all those churches banging on about sole fide and “works righteousness” are the same ones insisting the law of Moses applies to non-Jews. In all the proof texts they use about “works”, “works” means the compliance with Jewish law which Paul was adamant non-Jewish Christians need not (indeed should not) do.
This is where the different kind of laws comes into play. The non-Jewish people were most definitely held under the moral laws. God condemned many of them for things like murder, child sacrifice, etc., but he never condemned them for civil or ceremonial laws, like dietary laws.
The moral laws applied to all people equally, while the other laws only applied to the jewish nation.
Non-Jews are bound by the 7 Noahide laws:
Do not deny God.
Do not blaspheme God.
Do not murder.
Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.
Do not steal.
Do not eat from a live animal.
Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to said laws.
To further confound the issue, the Rabbis taught us that there are 2 categories in the law: those laws whose purpose we understand and those whose purpose is incomprehensible. They then went on to assert that the latter group were the more important laws.
We sure know how to screw up a good thing, dont we? No sooner are we set free from the Law, then we insist on living by the Law again! Not satisfied with that we even create new laws: thou shalt not partake of fermented drink, thou shalt not smoke or chew. Thou shalt not go with girls that do! Seriously, for all the talk of “Grace” within conservative circles, the Bible is a rule book for most. Once the Bible becomes a rule book, then living by those rules becomes salvation by “works.”
Dr Corey, I’m not sure I follow: Are you stating that homosexuality was prohibited for the jewish society but that for today’s society it is no longer a sin? Also are unbelievers under the law of Christ or some other law or no law at all? If some other law, what exactly is that?
Shockingly, Jesus said nothing at all about homosexuality.
This unchanging truth is indeed terribly offensive, yet no amount of fundamentalist gymnastics will change it:
True, but He did condemn ‘all sexual immorality’ which for a 1st Century Jewish Rabbi would undoubtedly have included sexual activity between people of the same sex (ie it was a well known ‘given’). And His Jewish hearers would have agreed with Him. In arguing that Jesus did not condemn gay sex, you have to provide the evidence that Jesus would not have included it in ‘sexual immorality’. So far, I have seen zero evidence.
Though he did define marriage as a male/female union, as defined in the created order.
I have to be honest, I do like a seafood cocktail!
Benjamin:
The good news? Well, if you’re a Christian you’ve invited to follow Jesus and to model your life after him– so there’s no need to figure out OT law, since a Christian is under the law of Christ.
Ronny to Benjamin:
Amen! And the first and main part of this, is to simply love all people and treat them all, as we wish to be treated.
Enacting the Greatest Commandment is indeed terribly offensive to evangelical fundamentalists. It’s why they need their cherrypicked OT laws to hide behind.
.. amen.
“For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”” (Galatians 5:14, ESV)
The NT authors, especially Paul, make it easy for us by directly referring to the OT law in multiple cases and actively applying it (like in the case of homosexuality).
The way I learned it was to follow the results of the first Church council, as recorded by Luke in Acts 15:20 “…abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.”
That’s for we gentile Christians, and is taken from the OT laws (Leviticus, as I recall) about how non-Jews (“resident alien”) were to act in the Kingdom of Israel. I gotta admit, though, for us moderns, 3/4 of those prohibitions are pretty easy to follow. The last one is pretty difficult for almost all of us though.
Except the blood and strangling were to do with idolatry.
Paul of course disagreed with the whole blood thing.
So were they fine with incest? How about beastiality?
>”The good news? Well, if you’re a Christian you’ve invited to follow
Jesus and to model your life after him– so there’s no need to figure out
OT law, since a Christian is under the law of Christ.”
Well, in the sermon on the mount Jesus said that not the smallest letter of the OT laws would pass away and went on to condemn those who break the least of those commandments and teach others to do so (Mt 5:17-19)
So someone who “follows Jesus” shouldn’t have to figure out which OT laws are no longer valid, since Jesus said that they all are!
.. so where are the ‘good christians’ who are protesting and spending money to defend this?
““If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit.” (Leviticus 25:35–37, ESV)
… and i really like this one…
““At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the Lord’s release has been proclaimed.” (Deuteronomy 15:1–2, ESV)
… so, because “i follow the laws of God and not of man” are you saying any debt over 7 years old, i can just rip up the paper and throw them away and claim “religious liberty.”
…. cool …
” … always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth … ”
“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:1–7, ESV)
Herro, that is not “good news” for anyone. You misread Matthew 5:17-19 and certainly did not complete the thought with the conclusive verse 20.
Matthew 5:17-20 (NIV2011)
You did not take into account for Christ Jesus it was finished just before He gave up His spirit. For the Messiah following His last breath heaven and earth disappeared for in death there is no awareness, none. The dead know nothing.
John 19:30 (NIV2011)
You ignore what sums up all the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 7:12 (NIV2011)
You ignore what all the Law and Prophets hang on.
Matthew 22:34-40 (NIV2011)
You ignore all that needs to be between you, the Lord your God, and your good neighbor to live eternally.
Luke 10:25-28 (NIV2011)
Herro, that is just from the red letters in your Bible. If you read further, those born of mankind in the image of God filled with the Holy Spirit, now born of God, testified point blank that no child of God in the Spirit is under any law, as I do now.
The “Good News” (Gospel) is that the Spirit is now available to all ever since the curtain was torn top to bottom at Jesus last breath, and three days later the Temple was raised with Christ as our high priest. Only those filled with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, the Advocate, can speak the word of God. All authority of law given to the Pharisees and the teachers of the law under the covenant with Moses was finished 1,984 years ago. We, the children of God, were not left orphaned. The covenant of all authority in heaven and on earth is with my Lord and Brother Jesus. The Holy Spirit is our Teacher who repeats as He is instructed by our divine School Master and our Father.
Sin is not disobeying the law, never was. Sin is being separate from relationship bound in love. Sin against your enemy, your neighbor, Man and God is when you cannot be empathetic, compassionate, and forgiving at least as much as you would be for yourself (Matthew 7:12). Go and sin no more because you don’t have to when you’re within a relationship of love (bi-lateral or uni-lateral) that the Holy Spirit can provide for all who have an image of spirit like God or are in the Spirit of God!
The author of the Gospel of Matthew has a difference of opinion with the authors of the other Gospels. It appears he was writing for a primarily Jewish group of Jesus followers, compared to the primarily non-Jewish audiences of the other writers and Paul.
It’s one of the various areas where the Gospels simply disagree with each other, and where GoMatt in particular is at the opposite end of the spectrum from where, for example, Paul stands. In retrospect it’s slightly strange that it survived the canonization process.
Herro said: So someone who “follows Jesus” shouldn’t have to figure out which OT laws are no longer valid, since Jesus said that they all are!
Right. I trust you do no work whatsoever on Saturdays, never wear cotton polyester t-shirts, never indulge in a bacon cheeseburger, send every female in your family out of town every month during her period, never trim your beard, always wear clothes with tassels, celebrate the feast of weeks, and sacrifice the first born of every womb to god, except donkeys and firstborn sons can live if you kill something else instead.
Let the spluttering begin.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Christian.
People living in Israel would have no difficulty in understanding and obeying those laws pertaining to their civil government unless they wanted to suffer the consequences. There are laws in our country that govern our behavior and most citizens have no problem in understanding and obeying them. Those that don’t or won’t suffer the consequences and many are in jail. It’s not that difficult to categorize the OT Laws.
In other words: it’s ok that the Old Testament Laws sound like ISIS and Saudi Arabia…..
the bible says a lot of things
Love your simple style!
My perception of the Old Testament is that it’s a compilation of legendary stories embellished by ancient mostly unidentified authors. I accept some historical events may be true. I’m open to the idea that some prophets have received God’s wisdom. I see the scriptures as true, divinely inspired theology mixed with foreign elements that are purely the work of men. As such, we need to separate the kernel of the inspired divine messages from the husk that contains it.
The problem with that view is, how do you know which parts are divinely inspired and which are not? Everyone would have quite different views, some accepting one part as genuinely from God and rejecting others, whilst other people would do the exact opposite with the same writings. It seems to me one of the reasons why some reject the more difficult passages, such as God telling Israel leaders to attack another people, is not because God didnt say such things but rather because they have an incorrect understanding of God.
In Exodus 34, Moses came down from the mountain with stone tablets. The commands on these tablets are the only commandments in the bible actually called “The Ten Commandments.” This list includes requirements about keeping the sabbath and prohibiting idols.
It also says that the first fruit of every womb must be sacrificed to god, except that donkeys and baby boys can live if you kill something else instead. (Ex 34:19-20)
The bible requires child sacrifice (girls only).
Maybe the “not one jot or tittle” folks can explain how they obey this one…. while the rest of us phone CPS.
God is forever. God’s moral laws are forever. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
The unlawful killing of another has always been immoral behavior in the eyes of God.
Homosexaul activity has always been immoral behavior in the eyes of God.
Theft has always been immoral behavior in the eyes of God.
Adultery has always been immoral behavior in the eyes of God.
The list of immoral behaviors in the eyes of God has always been long and will continue to be so because God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Based on the terms that Jesus defined adultery, would you then say that divorced and remarried couples are living an immoral lifestyle?
Except married men could screw single women according tot he torah. That wasn’t adultery.
Wow…Have to tell my wife that law is still going.
There is a difference, though, between what we might think of as a certain body of moral behavior that God is behind and the “moral laws” of the Old Testament.
Ben’s whole point is that there is no subdivision of the Torah that are the “moral laws” and all the others are some different variety altogether. Sure, it’s wrong to murder, but it was wrong to murder before the Ten Commandments, right? That specific law doesn’t establish or perpetuate the immorality of murder. It’s a law.
I see no difference in the moral laws of God and those set forth in Scripture simply because the Scriptures are of God. Do you believe that the Scriptures are of God or do you believe that man has the authority to say some Scriptures are not of God and therefor not man does not have to obey or even believe?
It most certainly was wrong to murder before the Ten Commandments for that law was written in the hearts of all men. We call that a conscience.
See Romans 1:18-32 for instance.
Do you believe women are unclean during their period?
Should women stay home or put a sign on them?
Why did God change his mind about that?
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Matthew 5:18 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.
Mark 7:19: “Thus, he declared all foods clean.”
Hey, I can proof text, too. Are you interested in actually having a discussion, or should we have a contest between who can pull as many verses out of their context?
How do you personally define “all scripture”? How did Paul define “all scripture” when he wrote 2 Timothy 3:16?
Exactly. We read everything through a contemporary lens as if Paul or Isaiah were referring to our own bibles
Jesus DID abolish the law when, on the cross, He said, “It is finished.”
From Dictionary.com:
abolish
[uh-bol-ish]
verb (used with object)
1.
to do away with; put an end to; annul; make void:
to abolish slavery.
finished
[fin-isht]
adjective
1.
ended or completed.
IT IS FINISHED!
How do you know he meant “the Law” when he said, “It is finished.” Here he is, suffering on a cross, about to die, and he yells out a theological comment about the inapplicability of the Torah?
Are there any passages of Scripture that let you know that when Jesus said, “It is finished,” he meant the Law?
The O.T. condemns adultery and prescribes the death penalty. It prescribes the same penalty for dishonoring parents, for being a fortune teller, or a homosexual. These sound like moral rules, not civil law nor ceremonial rules. Should Christians be obligated to obey these O.T
rules?
Just on this….
Is it just a coincidence that Hindus have the same uncleanliness law regarding menstruation as the old Testament?
A Menstruating Woman in Nepal Died as a Result of an Irrational Hindu Ritual
A 22-year-old Nepalese woman named Gauri Kumari Bayak recently died alone in a windowless hut on a freezing cold night because she was menstruating.
She didn’t die because someone forced her to sleep outside her warm home, but because, after centuries — perhaps millennia — of dominant Hindu religious traditions in her homeland, she believed she had to. In her culture, women are seen as unclean during their monthly periods, shunned like lepers. It’s just the way it is. Known as chhaupadi (meaning “tree omen”), the myth reflects the idea that women are so toxic during menstruation that if they touch a tree, it will forever be barren of fruit.
The cause of Bayak’s death was reportedly asphyxiation from the fumes of a small fire she lit to stave off hypothermia.
At this time of year, Nepal is quite cold, especially at night. In Ms. Bayak’s area, the temperature dropped close to freezing on Monday. Police officials said the shed where she was sleeping had no windows, and that they found fresh coals near her body, evidence that she had built a small fire.
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/01/12/a-menstruating-woman-in-nepal-died-as-a-result-of-a-irrational-hindu-ritual/#vLMCjUeAlHCJ3hpM.99
More evidence that the Old Testament Law is just a bunch of ancient cultural taboos.
Here are some passages that should help clear up some misunderstanding and possible intentional confusing of those wanting to ‘do swhat is bad’ by pointing to things they ought not point to as a ‘justification’. If necessary, please read Acts 15 from the beginning to see why these Christians all met together to clear up some things for Christians compared tot eh former ways of the Israelites under the Mosaic Law. Also, keep in mind that Revelation 21 is coming from Jesus’ mouth.
(Acts 10:10-16) But he became very hungry and wanted to eat. While they were preparing the meal, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and something descending like a great linen sheet being let down by its four corners on the earth; 12 and in it were all sorts of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and birds of heaven. 13 Then a voice said to him: “Get up, Peter, slaughter and eat!” 14 But Peter said: “Not at all, Lord, because I have never eaten anything defiled and unclean.” 15 And the voice spoke again to him, the second time: “Stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.” 16 This happened a third time, and immediately it was taken up into heaven.
(Acts 15:28, 29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
(Revelation 21:8) But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and the sexually immoral and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death.”
***
If you need, I an find more NT passages that will helpyou clear up your confusion about how Christians are to live comparedto those who were literally ‘under the Law’. There certainly are things in the Law that apply to us are far as the legitimate ‘moral’ conduct of them. Eating food has nothing to do with morality so much as those things were simply being used by God to point to ‘what is ‘clean’ and what is ‘unclean’. And there was to be a separation of the things that were/are ‘clean’ and unclean’. Just as Christians are to ‘spearate themselves from teh world’ in ways. Think of the ‘not mixing 2 kinds of threads’ or sowing one field with 2 seeds.
here’s a scripture that came up for me.
First Corinthians 2: 15 + 16
15 The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is not subject to anyone’s judgment.
16 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
And this!!
John 16.13 and 14
13 However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.
14 He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you.
1st John 2:27
27 And as for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But just as His true and genuine anointing teaches you about all things, so remain in Him as you have been taught.
… amen
“For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 2:12–16, ESV)
“For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”” (Galatians 5:14, ESV)