Is Christianity Deceptively Selective About the Commands in the Bible?

Question:

The Bible lists things like eating shellfish right along side homosexuality as equally bad, because both are abominations, yet they [Christians] keep eating shrimp while saying homosexuality is wrong. Isn't this kind of selective obedience to the Bible hypocritical?

Answer:

There are three questions here.

1) Why do Christians seem to selectively pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament they obey?
2) What is an abomination?
3) Are "eating shrimp" and "homosexuality" really classified together in the Old Testament?

And maybe even a fourth question:

4) Are Christians hypocrites?

The simple answer to the first question is that we are told over and over again in the New Testament that the law, and the commands found in the law, no longer apply to those who believe in Jesus, as His death and resurrection have set us free from the law. This is a central issue for Paul, one that he addresses repeatedly in several letters.

For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man. So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:2-6)

Paul insists that this is a central tenet of Christianity. The law could make us aware that we are not righteous, but it could not make us righteous. It could make us aware of our sin, but it could not cleanse us of our sin. That is why Jesus' death and resurrection were so important.

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (Galatians 2:20-21)

However, something that becomes clear in Paul's writings on the law is that the moral commandments in the law are simply an expression of God's character, and as such, are eternal. Both Paul and Jesus constantly insist that the moral part of the law is still binding on believers, because the moral commands embody the heart of God that we be holy and loving. Further, just for clarity, virtually every moral law from the Old Testament is repeated in the New Testament.

The part of the law that was ceremonial, such as the cleanliness laws, dietary laws, festivals, sacrifices and so on were intended to point us to Christ, and those were never really intended to be eternal. You can still do them if you really, really want to, but there is not really a point to it any more. They are just a shadow; Jesus has come, and He is the reality that they were pointing to all along. So live the reality, not the shadow.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

Thus, none of the dietary commands are binding on believers, but the commands to be truthful, to refrain from adultery, theft, murder, coveting and so on are all still in effect. This means that Christians are not really "picking and choosing" which parts of the Old Testament they want to keep, and throwing out the stuff they don't want to keep. The quick and dirty guideline is this: if it is a moral command, it is still binding (and has been repeated in the New Testament), if it is a ceremonial law (sacrifices, dietary, cleanliness, festivals, etc.), it is no longer required for followers of Jesus Christ.

Second, is an abomination a especially horrible sin?

The Hebrew word usually translated "abomination," תּועבה, means "disgusting, loathsome, nasty, horrible," but here is the really important part: this word appears 117 times in the Old Testament, and is attached to virtually every moral or idolatrous sin in the Bible. Among the sins listed as abominations are (in alphabetical order), adultery, atheism, bestiality, breaking a vow, cheating, creating discord, demon worship, evil schemes, hardening the heart, homosexuality, incest, justifying wickedness, lying, magic, murder, oppressing the poor, pride, shedding innocent blood, theft, and violence. And this is not an exhaustive list.

The point is simply that God finds all sin disgusting. Sin is an abomination to God.

Ironically, despite this common connection in our culture, one of the things not on this list is eating shrimp.

There is a second Hebrew word, שׁקץ, that is used almost exclusively of foods that are ceremonially unclean. It only appears 11 times in the Old Testament, and means, "filthy, dirty, polluted, very unclean." In some translations, such as the KJV, this word is also translated "abomination." This is the word used in the passages where Israel is forbidden from eating shellfish (which would include shrimp).

So are homosexuality and eating shrimp really equated in the Bible? No. Homosexuality is treated as a moral issue while eating shrimp is an issue of ceremonial cleanliness (meaning the ban on eating shrimp has been lifted in the New Testament).

On the other hand, contrary to what some seem to imply, homosexuality is not treated as some especially horrible sin that is set apart in God's mind from all other sins. Sin is sin, and God finds all sin disgusting (an abomination), including that lie you told last week, the time you gossiped back in middle school, and the pencil you stole from work. However, while God clearly finds all sin disgusting, He really does know the difference between something that is truly evil, such as plotting and carrying out a murder, and a victimless sin, such as stealing a paper clip. All are equally sin, but they are not all equally evil. See my post, "Do All Roads Lead to God?" for a more in depth discussion of the difference between "sin" and "evil," and the real meaning of "sin."

So the bottom line is that the Old Testament law has moral commands that are eternally binding on all believers, while it also has ceremonial laws which were always intended to be temporary, point to something greater, and now that the greater, Jesus, has arrived, they are no longer binding on believers. In other words, God Himself has given us permission to be selective in what we obey concerning ceremonial laws.

Theologically speaking, there is  much more to this, but there is no where near enough room in this forum for what God was really doing with those ceremonial laws, and why it is that Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it," as well as why Paul calls the "fulfilled" law, "the Law of the Spirit of Life."

As for the last question, "Are Christians hypocrites?"

Frankly, in the strictest sense, yes we are. We constantly preach holiness and love, yet are often sinful and selfish. We talk about being set free from sin, yet all too often there is no discernible difference in our behavior from that of any self proclaimed modern pagan. The difference, however, is that most of us are aware that we are imperfect, that we are constantly failing, and that we are unlikely to attain a true moral perfection in this life. We don't claim to be perfectly sinless, we claim to be forgiven, to be washed, and to have access to a God who is, little by little, helping us correct the flaws in our character so that we can sin less and less. And because we are so keenly aware of our own failings, we have no desire to beat you up about yours. We once were where you are now, we have not forgotten it, and we are deeply aware that our current state is due to Jesus, not to anything we did.

A real hypocrite is not the person that Christ is gradually healing who is trying to help you find that same healing for your wounds; a real hypocrite is the person who stands above you bruised and bleeding, claiming to have no injuries of any kind, while castigating you for your cuts and lacerations. The real hypocrite tries to make you feel like you are less so they can be more. The real believer treats you like you are priceless, worth every minute and effort, and that you can become more like Jesus, not more like them.

In other words, the essence of the hypocrite is pride, arrogance and selfishness, while the essence of the believer is humility, humbleness, and selflessness. And we freely admit we are not there yet. 

We who believe in Jesus and have the eternal life He promised are on a journey, and much to our delight, there is room on this bus, right here next to us, for you to join in the journey.

Do all roads lead to God?

Question:

With all the billions of people of other faiths in the world, it just seems to me that claiming Christianity is the only way is intolerant in the extreme. It seems to me a more enlightened view is that all faiths lead to the same God. Given all the different beliefs in the world, isn't it arrogant to claim that you guys have the only way to heaven?

Answer:

That depends on whether or not we are correct. Just because someone claims there is only one path to a certain destination or one answer to a specific question does not automatically mean they are narrow minded, arrogant, or intolerant. Because . . . what if they are right?

Oh, and by the way, we don't actually claim that "Christianity" is the only way to salvation, we claim that the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to salvation. The two are not the same. In other words, it is not the commands, traditions, trappings, doctrines, teachings or good works of Christianity that bring salvation: it is faith in the God of Christianity that brings salvation. This is the ultimate example of, "it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know."

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (Joh 14:6 NIV)

To know if we are correct, we need to explore three questions:

1) What does it take to be saved (or qualify for heaven)?
2) What is the problem facing mankind that might keep them from salvation?
3) What is the solution to that problem?

Almost every faith on the planet has the same basic answer to the question of what does it take to be saved (or make it to paradise, or reach nirvana, or escape the cycle of reincarnation): your good must outweigh your bad. And the vast majority of all their various teachings center on telling us what we have to do, or how we have to live, in order for that to be true in our life.

Christianity, however, has a completely different answer. The Bible teaches us that being more good than bad is simply not good enough. God's standard is much, much higher than that.

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mat 5:48 NIV)

So in Christianity, the only way to be saved is to be perfect.

You see, where most other religions view the requirements for salvation as a kind of test where you need to get a certain score to pass, Christianity views it as a judgement in a criminal trial. Each person will be on trial for crimes committed against God, and the "good things" we have done will have no bearing on determining our guilt.

For example, if I am on trial for murder, no amount of good deeds that I have done will have any bearing on whether or not I am found guilty. They might effect my sentence, but they will have no effect on my guilt. Being nice to my wife, and giving money to charity has nothing to do with the question, "Did I commit murder?" Likewise, the Bible teaches that our guilt or innocence is based on one question: have I sinned? No amount of "good deeds" have any impact on this question.

Further, sin is not defined as "evil." Sin produces evil, leads to evil, can make us evil, but strictly speaking, sin is not "evil." The Geek word for sin is ἁμαρτία, and this word does not mean, "bad" or "evil," it means, "to miss the mark, to fail, to be less than morally perfect." Because "sin" is a failure to be morally perfect, it is completely legitimate to refer to an evil act as a "sin."

So the question we will all face at our trial is this: Have you been less than morally perfect? If we have committed any sins (moral failures), we will be found guilty.

In line with this, the Bible clearly teaches that the problem facing mankind is sin, and each and every one of us is afflicted by this disease.

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:22b-23 NIV)

Does this mean each of us are inherently evil, and if given half a chance, we will all become little Hitlers? Being thoroughly sinful does not automatically mean we are thoroughly evil, it means we are thoroughly imperfect. Thoroughly imperfect people can do good things, and can even resist doing evil things. So the problem of sin is not that it will inevitably turn us all into serial killers, the problem is that it keeps us from being perfect. And because of this inborn imperfection, we ALL will eventually do something that is a moral failure, we will do something wrong, and at that moment, we are condemned. We now fail to qualify for heaven.

No heaping of good deeds on top of our sins can make up for that crime. Thus, we all, each and every one of us, are doomed to be found guilty, and forbidden to enter heaven.

This is where Jesus comes in. The REASON He is the only way to salvation is that His death and resurrection are the only means to wash us clean of our imperfect behavior, and make us morally perfect in the eyes of God. Paul explains how it works this way:

But here is how God has shown his love for us. While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. The blood of Christ has made us right with God. So we are even more sure that Jesus will save us from God's anger. Once we were God's enemies. But we have been brought back to him because his Son has died for us. Now that God has brought us back, we are even more secure. We know that we will be saved because Christ lives. (Rom 5:8-10)

Because Jesus died for us, we are forgiven and made clean, and because He rose from the grave, and now lives, we are given new life and saved.

And what does it take to get in on this awesome deal?

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame." (Rom 10:9-11)

Just a quick note: biblical faith is not only something we say, most importantly, it is something we do. In the same way that real love is demonstrated by what we do, real faith in Jesus is demonstrated by our actions, by how we live from this day forward, NOT by simply saying a prayer. In other words, if our faith is real, salvation is instantaneous, and the proof of that is that our lives are forever changed.

So here is the bottom line. If the Bible is right about how to get to heaven (be perfect), about what our problem is (we cannot be perfect) and about how that problem is solved (faith in Jesus makes us perfect), then all faiths do NOT lead to God. Only one road leads to God, and that road is called Jesus. Furthermore, if the Bible is right, there is nothing intolerant or arrogant about this claim at all.

On the contrary, we have an obligation to get this message out to as many people as we possibly can.

Does God Exist? Part 2

Question:

Millions of people are good without God. We don't need God to be good. Why not choose the path of reason instead of the unnecessary superstition that there is a God?

Answer:

The comments that preceed this question are perfect examples of one of the truths of life I have noticed over and over again. Virtually every atheist I have ever met has been a very moral person. They have a clear understanding of right and wrong, and they are, as this quote states, very good people. The problem is not in their morality; the problem is that they live this morality in a way that demands the existence of the very God they deny exists. In other words, they live, and in some ways, speak as though God really does exist, while simultaneously denying His existence.

Let me explain.

If there is no God, then morality is a human construct, and humans can change it at will to fit the current situation. Morality, then, is no different that the rules of a house poker game. Nothing wild? One eyed jacks wild? Three cards? Five cards? Seven cards? Two cards down, the rest up? All cards down? One card on your forehead so only your oponents can see it? Ace's high? Ace's low? And on and on and on. If there is no God, then morality is whatever we want it to be, with no absolute, universal rules of any kind.

In fact, the very definition of things like "good" and "bad" would be completely arbitrary to the point of having no meaning whatsoever. If Hitler wanted to define "good" as the absence of all undesirables (Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, blacks, etc.) from existence, that definition is no more or less valid than any other definition of "good." If I want to take your brand new car away from you and keep it as my own, while that action may be illegal based on current law, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with it, because all definitions of "right" and "wrong" are nothing more than opinion.

The problem is, no one actually believes this, and no one outside of a psychiatric hospital or a high security prison (excepting those who have not yet been caught and encarcerated) actually lives their life as though morality is nothing more than a human construct. No matter what we claim to believe about God, humans cannot escape absolutes in morality. The most hardened atheists I have ever encountered have made some of the most astonishing statements that assume moral absolutes. Here is an example of what I am talking about from Penn Jillette, a staunch atheist. Listen to the entire story, and notice at time 4:30 how he describes the believer about whom he is telling this story:

"He was a very, very, very good man."

Penn Jillette talks about receiving a bible from a Christian.

The thing is, if there is no God, as Penn Jillette insists, this statement he just made is completely meaningless, since "good man" is an arbitrary tag that should mean something different to every person. But that is not how anyone actually talks, and that is not how Penn Jillette talks here. He is speaking in absolute terms, as though "good" exists independently of human opinion, and human behavior is measured against that standard.

And that is the problem.

While Penn speaks in the positive, it is often easier to understand the problem here if we switch to the negative. For example, while we may not always be able to agree on what is "good," we know beyond any doubt that there are some actions that are simply wrong, and can never be anything other than wrong, regardless of culture, age, government, or religion. Torturing and raping a six year old girl is evil, and will always be evil, no matter what the circumstances, culture, era, or reasoning. We all know this, deep down in the core of our being, and nothing could convince us otherwise. In the deepest depths of our hearts we know that labeling such behavior as evil transends human opinion. It is absolute, and no amount of argument or justification will ever change that determination. It doesn't matter what someone believes, this truth is independent of opinion, and requires no consensus to be True. It is manifestly obvious that this is True, and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.

We KNOW this to the very core of our being.

But if there is no God, absolutes such as this cannot exist. Without God, NOTHING in morality transends human opinion. We invented morality, and we can change it at will, whenever we want. When it comes to morality, the most we could ever say is that "I disagree with you." We cannot say, "you are wrong." We can make laws forbidding that behavior, we can punish those who engage in that behavior, but what we cannot say is that there is anything inherently "wrong" with that behavior.

And this startlingly simple truth, that moral absolutes really do exist, is one of the inescapable "hooks" that God has placed within each and every person. We know, beyond any doubt, that some things are simply wrong. We cannot escape the existence of absolutes, if for no other reason than to deny them is in itself, an absolute (that "no absolutes exist" is itself an absolute statement of truth, thus an inherent contradiction).

So when I say that every atheist I have ever met speaks as though there really is a God in heaven who has set the moral absolutes for humanity, and they themselves live as though these absolutes are not up for vote, but are so inherently obvious that they need not even be justified, this, to me, is one of the most compelling bits of evidence I have ever encountereed that God MUST exist. In order for an atheist to tell me I am "wrong" about anything I say or do, the very God he argues against must exist. In other words, no matter what he claims, his argument is not one of reason, but mere opinion.

Who, but God, could construct human minds in such a way that His staunchest enemies, those who despise Him the most, must predicate their strongest arguments against His existence on a premise that cannot be True unless He DOES exist? Is it rational to deny the existence of the foundation upon which your arguments rest?

The only truly rational conclusion is that God is real.

Now what are you going to do about it?