Should Christians just disregard Leviticus? I am very confused...

[MMA]

Obviously Christians do not follow the book of leviticus in many fasons live eating clean food, worship sacrafices, and the list goes on.

Yet in many fasions, Christains do follow the book devotely.
I dont get it at all and it bothers me. I am a Christain and I almost think that I am just going to start following the law of Leviticus unless someone can explain otherwise.

I know that jesus allready made the ultamite sacrafice but does that mean to disregard Leviticus. If so, then shouldnt we completely disregard it instead of picking and choosing what parts to live by?

 

[tim-from-pa]

Obviously Christians do not follow the book of leviticus in many fasons live eating clean food, worship sacrafices, and the list goes on.

Yet in many fasions, Christains do follow the book devotely.
I dont get it at all and it bothers me. I am a Christain and I almost think that I am just going to start following the law of Leviticus unless someone can explain otherwise.

I know that jesus allready made the ultamite sacrafice but does that mean to disregard Leviticus. If so, then shouldnt we completely disregard it instead of picking and choosing what parts to live by?

Don't disregard Leviticus, at least not the Law that deals with morality. The other Laws had to do with ceremonial foreshadowings of things fulfilled in Christ. So, if you read a law that deals for example with sexual behavior, that is still in effect. If on the other hand it involved ceremony, it is in effect in the sense that it was (or will be) fulfilled in Christ.

Keep in mind there were different types of sacrifices and not all were for sin. Likewise, some of Leviticus deals with priestly functions (hence the name) commanded by God to be carried out for a purpose. But like any ceremony, the purpose has been completed in Christ and does not have to be carried out any longer in that fashion.

I hold a special liking to Leviticus 23 because the feasts of the Lord is prophetic of everything to come. While I don't teach that Christians ought to keep it legalistically, it is good to observe the feasts as fulfilled in Christ. For example, Passover is replaced by what is commonly called "communion". But whereas the ceremonial aspect of the Law were rituals, one now keeps them in the Spirit when they understand how they were fulfilled in Christ.

As one learns and matures this becomes more apparent. To blow off Leviticus as something "under the Law" and "not in effect" any longer shows in that regards a certain amount of spiritual immaturity as to the reason God made them to begin with.

 

[kimberlie]

I think that your best answer is going to come from the scripture, itself. A Christian should never disregard any of the Bible. Not the law, not the begats, not any of it.

2 Tim 3:16-17 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."​

However, with that being said, one has to understand the purpose of each portion of the scripture.​

What was the purpose of the Levitical Law? The Apostle Paul says that the purpose of the law was to show us what sin was until Jesus came and could deliver us from it. And that once He came, we no longer needed the "tutor" of the law.​

Galatians 3:19-25 "Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator.<SUP> </SUP>A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. ​

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. ​

Before the coming of faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. ​

Paul says in Romans 10 that Christ marks the end of the law. And he says that even Moses taught that if a person were going to base their righteousness on the law and not on faith that they would have to live by the whole law. He repeats that in Galatians also. When precisely did the "end of the law" come? Ephesians 2 says that the hostility was abolished when Jesus died on the cross.


Romans 10:1-5 "Brothers,my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that<SUP> </SUP>the person who does the commandments shall live by them"

Galatians 5:1-4 "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

Ephesians 2:13-15 "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were<SUP> </SUP>far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For<SUP> </SUP>he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility."

So what did Jesus mean when He said that He didn't come to abolish the law? Does this contradict Paul who said that the law of commandments WAS abolished by Christ's death? No.

This essay explains quite simply what Jesus meant. What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it?

Paul very clearly stated (and quoted Moses as saying) that if you are going to keep one law for justification's sake, then you are going to have to obey ALL of it. And that's impossible. If it were possible to keep the law, then as stated in the first passage above, then we would have had no need of Christ.

Romans 7:12 says that the law was holy, just, and good. But Hebrews 7,8, and 9 (specifically 7:18, 8:13, and 9:9-10) explain just how temporary that law was. These passages use adjectives describing the law a "weak", "obsolete", "annulled", and "symbolic".

The law served a great purpose to the Israelites that it was intended for and for Christians who read it today, but who are not obligated to serve it. It showed what sin was and pointed the way to redemption through Christ. I absolutely LOVE Leviticus 14. It is a beautiful portrayal of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I love reading Leviticus as well as the entire Old Testament. It's important and meaningful to me. But I am under no obligation to "keep" it.

I'll explain that in my next post.

 

[kimberlie]

Sorry for prattling on, but it's hard to condense my thought down.

Are there some laws in Leviticus that are still applicable today? Yes. But NOT because they are "in the law". Laws pertaining to things like murder, sexual sins, coveting, immorality, justice, mercy, and others still carry weight.

Why?

Because LONG before there ever was a nation of Israel and LONG before the law was every born, murder was a sin and it still is. Adultery, lying, cruel treatment of others, homosexuality, and more were sins from the beginning and are still sins today. It was a sin when Cain killed Abel. It was a sin when Rueben has sex with his father's concubine. It was a sin when the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah participated in homosexuality. It was a sin when Abraham and Sarah lied to two different kings and led them to believe that they were not married. It was a sin when Joseph's brothers allowed their anger at their father to torment them to a hatred of their brother. All of this took place centuries BEFORE the law ever existed.


How could they be sins when there was no law?

Because of God's Holy Nature. We are to emulate Him. God does not murder, steal, lie, and covet. He cannot be cruel, unjust, unmerciful, or unloving. He will not turn his back on his people and seek out another people to love. Ergo, we are to be just like Him as close as we can.


The Holy standard of God's Nature runs like a golden thread from out of Himself into the universe before He said "let there be light", into the Creation, the Garden, and it threaded it's way OUT of the Garden, into the nation of Israel, the law, and it threaded it's way OUT of the law and INTO the New Testament and beyond and His Holy Standard still abides today.


We are to avoid sexual sins and sins of mistreating others and disrespecting God NOT because they are written down in the book of Leviticus, but because these sins represent what is opposed to the holy nature of God.

If we were to abstain from these sins BECAUSE they are written down in Leviticus, then we would have to participate in ALL of their lawful consequences. People today who committed adultery would have to be stoned in the streets. Young girls who become promiscuous would have to be burned at the stake. Young men who were rebellious would have to be publicly stoned. To adhere to the law for the law's sake, says Paul, is to adhere to ALL of it.

Now, does that mean that we can completely DISREGARD what Leviticus says?

Consider what Paul says in Galatians 5:1-4 and 13. [1] Christ has liberated us into freedom. Therefore stand firm and don't submit again to a yoke of slavery. [2] Take note! I, Paul, tell you that if you get circumcised, Christ will not benefit you at all. [3] Again I testify to every man who gets circumcised that he is obligated to keep the entire law. [4] You who are trying to be justified by the law are alienated from Christ; you have fallen from grace!..................... [13]For you are called to freedom, brothers; only don't use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but serve one another through love. [14] For the entire law is fulfilled in one statement: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

What does Christian liberty mean?

It means that there is nothing in the law that when violated is going to send you to hell on that account all by itself. Our personal and individual sins don't condemn us. Our sin nature condemns us. We aren't sinners because sin. We sin because we are sinners first - born with that nature. Like being born right-handed or left-handed. It means that one's righteousness is not connected with the law in any way, shape, or form.

It means that the civil and the ceremonial law found in Leviticus doesn't even apply to Christans. Period.

For example, it's not a sin to get a tattoo. It just isn't. But is it wise? Let's think. How many young men have professed their love for their girlfriends by getting their name tattooed on their necks. And then how many of those young men MARRIED someone else!! I know I would not enjoy being married to a wonderful Christian man with the name "CARMELITA" tattooed on his neck.

Drinking alcohol is not a sin. Drunkeness is most definitely a sin. Therefore, while we have the liberty to drink without condemnation, yet we know that drunkeness is a sin - extreme caution to point of abstaining for most people should be taken in this area.

Paul says very clearly that liberty is freedom from the chains of the law, but that a Christian should not just run "willy-nilly" off into "liberty land" and live for the flesh. He or she should instead, use that wonderful liberty in service to others.

For a Christian to think, "Well, the Bible says that the law has been annulled and I guess that means that I can do whatever I please" is a sign of a very weak-minded Christian.

A Christian should use his or her liberty, according to Paul, NOT to live in abandon, but to serve.

When in doubt about "do's" and "don't", we are to be imitators of Christ and God says that we are to be holy as He is holy. And Christ, Himself, said that the greatest two commandments were to love God and to love others as we love ourselves. If we get THOSE TWO commandments under our belt, we won't have to worry about anything else. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

 

[Lewis]

I have not read Leviticus in a long time, but there are some moral laws in there that still stand. Leviticus 18:20-23 Leviticus 19:11-19 Leviticus 19:28:31 Leviticus 20:10 :13:15 King James Version, just to name a few.

 

[Hitch]

Don't disregard Leviticus, at least not the Law that deals with morality. The other Laws had to do with ceremonial foreshadowings of things fulfilled in Christ. So, if you read a law that deals for example with sexual behavior, that is still in effect. If on the other hand it involved ceremony, it is in effect in the sense that it was (or will be) fulfilled in Christ.

Keep in mind there were different types of sacrifices and not all were for sin. Likewise, some of Leviticus deals with priestly functions (hence the name) commanded by God to be carried out for a purpose. But like any ceremony, the purpose has been completed in Christ and does not have to be carried out any longer in that fashion.

I hold a special liking to Leviticus 23 because the feasts of the Lord is prophetic of everything to come. While I don't teach that Christians ought to keep it legalistically, it is good to observe the feasts as fulfilled in Christ. For example, Passover is replaced by what is commonly called "communion". But whereas the ceremonial aspect of the Law were rituals, one now keeps them in the Spirit when they understand how they were fulfilled in Christ.

As one learns and matures this becomes more apparent. To blow off Leviticus as something "under the Law" and "not in effect" any longer shows in that regards a certain amount of spiritual immaturity as to the reason God made them to begin with.

Its not often Tim and I agree but hey when he gets one right he's right.

 

[MMA]

Thank you both for the thorough responses.

Now we have to conflicting opinions in this thread. Tim and Hitch are making the case that we are to end the traditions but not the laws and Kimberlie is making the case that the law is guidance for how to live to God's standard but not exactly what is to be followed word for word. Being that I am a young Christian trying to understand the best way to follow gods way of life, and I am still confused as to the direction I should take (but then again that is the great thing about debating scripture).

Now one thing I will point out from my own analysis is Leviticus 27. In that chapter God explains the punishment of those who do not follow his laws but if you look at the history of Christianity, we have been the most blessed people in the world for the most part (look at America during its early-to-mid stages when it was based off of Christianity). So that is almost a living testament that god no longer requires us to follow the law (to an exact measure) because otherwise we Christians would not have been so blessed, right?

Tim, If we are to only follow the laws but not the traditions then should we follow Leviticus 19:27; "You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shall you mar the corners of your beard." and other laws of that nature? I am just confused...

Kim, I will quote you:

Because of God's Holy Nature. We are to emulate Him. God does not murder, steal, lie, and covet. He cannot be cruel, unjust, unmerciful, or unloving. He will not turn his back on his people and seek out another people to love. Ergo, we are to be just like Him as close as we can.

Now that is not true about murder (depending on what you consider murder I suppose..). It was Exodus 32:27; He said to them, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Every man of you put his sword upon his thigh, and go back and forth from gate to gate in the camp, and kill every man his brother, and every man his friend, and every man his neighbor.". God ordered the death of everyone who worshiped the sacred cow. He also killed everyone beside Noah in Genesis and made many laws resulting in death in Leviticus.

There are also many cases as well in the book of Genesis where god had taken other peoples land and herds and given them to his prophets.

These are questions that I am trying to to figure out as I am studying the bible for the first time...

 

[kimberlie]

Now that is not true about murder (depending on what you consider murder I suppose..). It was Exodus 32:27; He said to them, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Every man of you put his sword upon his thigh, and go back and forth from gate to gate in the camp, and kill every man his brother, and every man his friend, and every man his neighbor.". God ordered the death of everyone who worshiped the sacred cow. He also killed everyone beside Noah in Genesis and made many laws resulting in death in Leviticus.

There are also many cases as well in the book of Genesis where god had taken other peoples land and herds and given them to his prophets.

These are questions that I am trying to to figure out as I am studying the bible for the first time...

You are right, MMA. It does depend on what your definition of murder is. God ordained many times in the Bible that His people were to slay other nations. In the New Testament, He struck down Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, for lying to the God and the church.

I don't consider those acts falling under the definition of murder. It's part of God's justice or "making things as they should be". As they should be - holy and pure. It's not pleasant to think about, but the Bible says that we ALL deserve death. The wages of sin is death.


Mankind has no right to take life indiscriminately and with malice and revenge/passion/hate/ or any other kind of evil intent.

God is the only judge who can truly know the heart of mankind and God says that vengeance belongs to Him.

So, no, I don't view God's giving of life and taking of life for His sovereign purposes as murder. Even Job, when God allowed satan to kill his 10 grown children, with no accounting to Job as "why!", Job only said this.

"The LORD gives and the LORD takes away. Blessed be the name of the LORD."

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Obviously Christians do not follow the book of leviticus in many fasons live eating clean food, worship sacrafices, and the list goes on.

Yet in many fasions, Christains do follow the book devotely.
I dont get it at all and it bothers me. I am a Christain and I almost think that I am just going to start following the law of Leviticus unless someone can explain otherwise.

I know that jesus allready made the ultamite sacrafice but does that mean to disregard Leviticus. If so, then shouldnt we completely disregard it instead of picking and choosing what parts to live by?

What exactly is the book and to whom was it written for? That's a question in need of an answer before delving into the actions the book calls for. If it is indeed a book mainly pertaining to the priesthood of the people who were in covenant with God starting at Sinai and ending with Jesus death and ascension to the right hand of God, then to us it is but a history book with life lessons and NOT law. Not one iota of it must we follow as we are not party to the covenant it was given in light of.

 

[stovebolts]

Obviously Christians do not follow the book of leviticus in many fasons live eating clean food, worship sacrafices, and the list goes on.

Yet in many fasions, Christains do follow the book devotely.
I dont get it at all and it bothers me. I am a Christain and I almost think that I am just going to start following the law of Leviticus unless someone can explain otherwise.

I know that jesus allready made the ultamite sacrafice but does that mean to disregard Leviticus. If so, then shouldnt we completely disregard it instead of picking and choosing what parts to live by?

It is a more complicated book than you may think if you really, really start to think with it.

I would suggest you study the book from a Jewish perspective first so you can get an idea of it's content, application and over all meaning. The Rambam has a very good commentary on it.

The book in and of itself is very in depth and is deeply nuanced to the culture in which it was written. If you study it from their perspective, then you will see clearly where much of it points directly to Christ.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.