Do Christians have to obey the Old Testament Law — or did Jesus wipe the slate clean and we just pick and choose whatever's convenient?

• E2

  Elena 211mo ago

  I'm gonna be real with y'all. I don't eat shellfish not because Leviticus says so but because they taste like rubber and the texture is offensive to my entire soul. Theologically I think we're free. Practically my body has made its own covenant.

  198Reply
• A

  Alex1mo ago

  Can we all agree that whatever we believe about the Law, using a Leviticus verse about men lying with men as a bludgeon while ignoring Leviticus telling you to cancel debt every seven years is just... intellectually dishonest? Either Leviticus counts or it doesn't. Pick a lane.

  189Reply
• MR

  Maya R.1mo ago

  The moral/ceremonial/civil distinction is literally nowhere in the Bible. You just described a framework theologians invented. The Torah doesn't divide itself that way. The Israelites didn't think that way. We made those categories up because we needed a justification for eating bacon.

  171Reply
• F

  Feli1mo ago

  The real issue is that American Christians desperately want a simple answer — law totally gone, or law totally binding — because nuance requires you to keep thinking. The canon of Scripture itself requires interpretive work across both Testaments, across covenants, across contexts. Anyone who tells you this is simple is either selling you something or hasn't read carefully enough. Do the hard work. It's worth it.

  163Reply
• J

  Jordan1mo ago

  Every single Sunday morning I watch Christians walk past homeless people to get to church on time and then debate online about whether the shellfish laws apply. The prophets said God wanted justice, not sacrifice. Amos 5:21-24 exists. Maybe that's the part of the law we should be sweating.

  156Reply
• H

  Hana1mo ago

  Here's what nobody in this thread has addressed: Jesus made the law HARDER in the Sermon on the Mount, not easier. You've heard it said don't murder — I say don't even be angry. Don't commit adultery — don't even lust. If Jesus abolished the law, why is He intensifying it? He's not saying you're free from the law, He's saying you need MORE righteousness than the Pharisees had. That should make everyone uncomfortable.

  147Reply
• C2

  Casey 211mo ago

  The answer is literally in Matthew 5:17. Jesus said He came to FULFILL the law, not abolish it. He didn't say it was gone, He said He completed it. That's a massive distinction that somehow gets lost every single time this conversation happens.

  143Reply
• EK

  Elena K.1mo ago

  This is one of those debates where everyone walks in with their conclusion and then finds the Bible verses to support it. Dispensationalists see complete discontinuity. Covenant theologians see deep continuity. Reformed folks split the law three ways. New Covenant theologians say the Mosaic covenant is entirely obsolete. Everyone's got a system and everyone's got proof texts. Maybe a little humility is in order before we all declare the others heretics.

  134Reply
• T

  Theo1mo ago

  I'm a pastor and honestly this question keeps me up more than almost anything else. I've changed my position three times in fifteen years. What I've landed on is this: the law reveals God's character, and God's character doesn't change, so in that sense the law always matters. But how it applies to people in covenant with God has genuinely changed with the coming of Christ. That's not a cop-out — it's the actual shape of redemptive history.

  121Reply
• F

  Feli1mo ago

  My grandmother kept the dietary laws her whole life. She was the most Christlike person I've ever known. My uncle ignores every single one and is also the most genuinely loving man I know. Both of them love Jesus deeply. Maybe the Holy Spirit is bigger than our categories.

  117Reply
• A

  Alex1mo ago

  I grew up in a church that kept basically the whole Mosaic law including dietary restrictions and holy days. Left when I was 19. Not because I think those things are wrong, but because the theology was used to control every single aspect of your life and shame anyone who stepped out of line. The law became a weapon. I think that's what Paul was actually fighting against.

  112Reply
• T

  Theo1mo ago

  If you think you can figure out which laws were 'object lessons' and which were eternal moral truths using nothing but your own theological intuition, you're not following the Bible anymore. You're following yourself and calling it exegesis. If that doesn't bother you it should.

  108Reply
• R

  Riley1mo ago

  been a messianic Jew for 11 years. we keep Torah because it's covenant identity not because we think we earn salvation by it. the whole 'you're trying to work your way to heaven' accusation is a strawman. nobody in my congregation thinks that. we keep shabbat because it's a GIFT and a sign. you guys in the evangelical world have no idea what you're dismissing when you say all that is 'abolished'

  101Reply
• Y

  Yuki1mo ago

  Romans 14 literally addresses this. One person considers one day sacred, another considers every day alike — let each be fully convinced in their own mind. Paul gave a framework for disagreement on exactly these secondary issues and we've spent 2000 years ignoring it to argue about it on the internet instead.

  93Reply
• D

  Diego1mo ago

  The moral/ceremonial/civil distinction solves this neatly. Moral law (Ten Commandments, love your neighbor) — still binding. Ceremonial law (sacrifices, dietary rules, feast days) — fulfilled in Christ and therefore no longer required. Civil law (specific Israelite jurisprudence) — expired with the theocracy. This isn't cherry-picking, it's basic hermeneutics that the church has used for 500 years.

  88Reply
• Y

  Yuki1mo ago

  ^^ that's the point exactly. Jesus isn't lowering the bar. He's raising it to the point where it's humanly impossible — which is exactly the point. We ALL need grace. The law's purpose was always to show you that you can't do it alone.

  86Reply
• Y

  Yuki1mo ago

  Telos doesn't only mean 'termination.' It can also mean 'goal' or 'completion.' You need to read that in context of the surrounding argument where Paul is talking about the purpose of the law in God's redemptive plan, not its total abolition. Strong's isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.

  83Reply
• O

  Omar1mo ago

  Appreciate the honesty from the pastor above. Though 'God's character doesn't change therefore law matters' leaves you with a lot of work to explain why God's character required Israel not to mix linen and wool. Is that God's eternal character? Really?

  78Reply
• MM

  Morgan M.1mo ago

  That passage is specifically about the law's role in bringing Gentiles to understand their need for justification by faith. You're universalizing a context-specific argument. Paul himself continued observing Jewish customs in Acts — he took a Nazirite vow, for crying out loud. You can't use Galatians to prove Paul thought all law was irrelevant to a believer's life.

  76Reply
• A

  Avery1mo ago

  Amen to that last comment but I'd push back on the framing — you can care about justice AND engage in theological debate. They're not mutually exclusive. Some of us chew on doctrine AND show up at the food bank. The implication that all theological discussion is a distraction is itself a theological position that needs defending.

  72Reply
• M

  Morgan1mo ago

  the basis is the Holy Spirit writing the law on our hearts which is literally what Jeremiah 31 promised and Hebrews 8 quotes. the new covenant was always going to be different from Sinai. the law internalized by the Spirit is not the same as a list of rules enforced from outside

  69Reply
• DL

  Drew L.1mo ago

  ok but 'fulfill' is doing a LOT of heavy lifting in that sentence. fulfilled can mean completed as in done with, like a fulfilled contract. you dont keep paying on a mortgage after its paid off

  67Reply
• L

  Liam1mo ago

  That argument sounds clever but it assumes all of Leviticus functions the same way, which is exactly what's in dispute. You can't use the contested point as a premise to settle the contested point. That's circular.

  64Reply
• L

  Leo1mo ago

  Romans 10:4 — Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. End. Telos. It's done. I don't know how to be clearer than that.

  61Reply
• A

  Alex1mo ago

  With respect to our Messianic brothers and sisters — Colossians 2:16-17 explicitly says don't let anyone judge you with regard to food, drink, festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths, because these are shadows and the substance is Christ. That verse was written to a church that was being pressured to adopt exactly those practices. Paul didn't say keep them if it feels meaningful to you. He said the pressure itself is illegitimate.

  58Reply
• J

  Jordan1mo ago

  Some of those purity laws were object lessons — physical symbols meant to teach Israel about holiness and separation from surrounding cultures. Understanding WHY God gave a law changes how you apply it after Christ. That's not cherry picking, that's asking the question the law itself invites you to ask.

  55Reply
• D

  Diego1mo ago

  ^^^ Thank you. Someone finally said it. The rabbis who actually wrote and lived the Torah would have no idea what you're talking about with these three categories.

  54Reply
• HL

  Hana L.1mo ago

  If the law's only purpose is to show you that you need grace, and then grace covers everything, then the law has no ongoing role in the Christian life at all. That leads straight to antinomianism. You can't then turn around and say 'but obviously murder is still wrong' — on what basis? Your own feelings? You need something to ground ethics in.

  52Reply
• S

  Sam1mo ago

  Humility is fine but some answers are actually more textually defensible than others. Epistemic cowardice dressed up as grace isn't wisdom.

  47Reply
• N

  Noah1mo ago

  The verse you just cited is telling believers not to be judged FOR keeping or not keeping those days — not that the days are abolished. Scholars debate which direction the pressure ran in Colossae. Your reading isn't as airtight as you think.

  44Reply
• DK

  Diego K.1mo ago

  Galatians 3:24-25. The law was a tutor to bring us to Christ. Once faith came, we're no longer under a tutor. That's Paul literally saying the law's supervisory role is OVER. Why is this hard.

  39Reply
• K

  Kofi1mo ago

  Romans 14 is about dietary scruples among believers in Rome. It's being stretched to cover the entire Mosaic law by people who want a proof text for 'it doesn't matter.' Hermeneutical context, people. Please.

  37Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about