Response to Tammy: The Mosaic Covenant and Christian Authority

Tammy, I appreciate the time you took to answer the questions. Since you have asked that we address the actual textual disagreements, I will follow your response in order and answer the arguments you made. You begin by saying that several central textual questions remain unresolved and that I have merely restated my framework. I do not believe that is accurate. I have identified the passages that establish the end of the Mosaic covenant and the authority of Christ's covenant. The fact that you reject my interpretation of those passages does not mean they have gone unanswered.

The fundamental disagreement between us is still the direction from which we approach biblical authority. Your position begins with the assumption that a Mosaic command remains applicable unless the New Testament identifies its cancellation. I begin with the New Testament's teaching that the covenant given through Moses has been replaced by the covenant of Christ. Therefore, Mosaic commands are not binding upon Christians merely because they have not each been individually repealed. A covenant does not remain legally binding one command at a time until every provision has received a separate cancellation notice. When the covenant itself is replaced, its authority ends as a covenant. Principles found within it may be taught again under Christ, but they are authoritative for Christians because Christ and His apostles taught them, not because Christians remain under Moses.

You return first to Acts 15:21 and ask why James said, "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." The context tells us what James meant. The controversy was not whether Gentiles could read Moses and learn wisdom from him. The controversy was whether Gentile converts had to be circumcised and commanded to keep the Law of Moses. Acts 15:1 says, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Acts 15:5 says, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." Peter rejected that position. He said God had purified the Gentiles' hearts by faith and asked why anyone would place upon their necks a yoke that neither their fathers nor they had been able to bear. James then concluded, "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles" (Acts 15:19).

That conclusion cannot mean, "We will not trouble them with Moses immediately, because they will learn to keep the rest of Moses every Sabbath." That would concede the very demand the apostles had rejected. The four prohibitions addressed matters that were especially necessary for Gentile converts leaving paganism and entering fellowship with Jewish Christians: idolatrous pollution, sexual immorality, meat from strangled animals, and blood. These were not presented as a summary of the entire Mosaic covenant or as the first four lessons in a gradual Torah-observance program. James' reference to Moses being read in every city explains why these matters required special attention. Jewish communities were widespread, Moses was publicly read, and these Gentile practices would create immediate offense and destroy fellowship. It does not say that Christians were expected to enter synagogues every Sabbath until they had learned the remaining commandments.

The letter sent by the apostles confirms this. It says that certain men had "disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, to whom we gave no instruction" (Acts 15:24). What had those men taught? Circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses. The apostles did not say, "They were right but moved too quickly." They said those teachers had no apostolic authorization. The letter then states, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials" (Acts 15:28). "No greater burden" cannot reasonably mean that the rest of the Mosaic law would become binding later through weekly synagogue instruction.

You next argue that Jeremiah says Yahweh will write "My Torah" upon the heart and that calling it a different law does not explain Jeremiah's language. The Hebrew word torah means instruction or law. It does not automatically mean the complete covenant delivered at Sinai every time it appears. The identity of the covenant must be determined by the passage itself. Jeremiah does not say that God would renew the Sinai covenant by moving it from stone to the heart. He says precisely the opposite: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" (Jeremiah 31:31–32). The covenant would be new, and it would not be like the covenant made at the exodus. That old covenant had been broken. God would establish a different covenant relationship in which His instruction would be internalized and sins would be forgiven.

Hebrews does not quote Jeremiah to prove the continuing authority of the Sinai covenant. Hebrews quotes Jeremiah to prove that the former covenant was insufficient and was being replaced. Hebrews 8:6 says Christ is "the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises." Hebrews 8:7 says, "If that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second." After quoting Jeremiah, Hebrews concludes, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete" (Hebrews 8:13). Therefore, "My law" in Jeremiah cannot mean that every law of the first covenant would remain legally binding under the second. Hebrews uses Jeremiah to establish the obsolescence of the first covenant, not its continuation.

God's law is written upon the Christian's heart through the teaching of Christ and the work of the gospel. Paul said Christians were a letter of Christ, "written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts" (2 Corinthians 3:3). He then contrasted the ministry engraved on stones with the ministry of the Spirit and said the former was fading away. That passage is difficult to reconcile with the idea that the law engraved on stones remains the binding legal code, only now relocated to the heart.

You also appeal to Ezekiel's promise that God's Spirit would cause His people to walk in His statutes and keep His judgments. Ezekiel spoke in prophetic language to Israel about restoration, cleansing, renewal, and the gift of the Spirit. The New Testament reveals the fulfillment of that promise through Christ. The presence of words such as "statutes" and "ordinances" does not prove that Gentile Christians are under the Sinai covenant. The same prophetic section speaks of Israel dwelling in the land given to Jacob, the multiplication of grain, the rebuilding of ruined cities, and the land becoming like the garden of Eden (Ezekiel 36:28–35). We must allow the New Testament to show how those promises are fulfilled rather than assuming every term must retain an unchanged Mosaic administration. The Spirit leads Christians into obedience to God, but the Spirit did not place Gentile Christians under circumcision, dietary restrictions, feast days, Sabbaths, or the remaining covenantal requirements of Sinai. The apostles who possessed the Spirit expressly refused to impose the Mosaic law upon Gentile converts.

You then state your interpretive principle: Scripture must identify what changed, why it changed, to whom a command was given, and whether it depended upon an institution that changed. Some of those questions are proper questions of interpretation. The error lies in treating the Mosaic covenant as the continuing default authority unless each command can be individually placed into a discontinued category. The New Testament does identify what changed. The covenant changed. Second Corinthians 3 contrasts the covenant written and engraved on stones with the ministry of the Spirit. Paul calls the former "the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones" and says it was fading away. Galatians 3 says the law was added because of transgressions "until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made" (Galatians 3:19). It served as a tutor to lead people to Christ, "but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor" (Galatians 3:24–25). Ephesians 2 says Christ abolished in His flesh "the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances," so that Jews and Gentiles might be reconciled in one body. Colossians 2 says the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. Paul then concludes, "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" (Colossians 2:16). Romans 7 says Jewish Christians had been "made to die to the Law through the body of Christ" so that they might be joined to Christ. Paul says, "But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound" (Romans 7:4–6). Hebrews says the first covenant became obsolete. The New Testament does not merely announce changes to the priesthood and sacrifices while leaving the rest of Sinai intact. It teaches a change of covenant, a change of law, and a change of governing authority.

You correctly say that God's holiness, righteousness, and character did not change. I have never argued that they did. But the unchanging character of God does not mean that every command He gave under one covenant remains binding under every covenant. God commanded Noah to build an ark. The command was righteous, but it is not binding upon us. God commanded Abraham to circumcise every male in his household. The command came from the holy God, but it is not covenantal entry for Christians. God commanded Israel to observe the Passover in a particular manner. The command was holy, but Christians are not bound to travel to Jerusalem and observe it according to Mosaic regulations. God commanded Israel to leave the borders of garments uncut, to place tassels on clothing, to avoid mixtures of seed and fabric, to observe sabbatical years, and to follow laws concerning ritual impurity. Each command came from the same holy God. God's holiness does not establish the perpetual covenantal force of every command He has ever given. The question is not whether a command was righteous when God gave it. It was. The question is whether God has given that command to Christians under the covenant of Christ.

You cite 2 Timothy 3 to say that the Scriptures teach, reprove, correct, and train Christians in righteousness. I agree. The Old Testament remains inspired and profitable. But "profitable" does not mean that Christians are under the Old Testament covenant. Paul himself used the law to teach Christian principles while denying that Christians were under the law. In 1 Corinthians 9, he quoted the command, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and applied its principle to the support of gospel preachers. Yet in the same chapter Paul said he was not under the law, though he was under the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:20–21). That is exactly the distinction I am making. The Old Testament continues to instruct us, but it is not our covenantal law.

You appeal to Jesus' statement that love for God and neighbor are the greatest commandments and that the Law and Prophets hang upon them. You say Jesus did not say those commands replaced what hangs from them. Jesus spoke those words while the Mosaic covenant was still in force. He accurately identified the heart of that law. But He also promised a new covenant in His blood and declared that all authority would belong to Him. The fact that commandments from Moses are repeated under Christ does not place Christians under Moses. Love for God and neighbor did not begin with Sinai, and they did not cease when Sinai ended. They express God's moral character and are explicitly commanded under Christ. Christ's law contains commandments also found in Moses, just as Moses contained moral truths known before Sinai. The repetition of a command does not preserve the legal authority of the former covenant.

You then ask why Leviticus 11 remains applicable while the sacrificial system does not. Your answer is that Hebrews explains the end of sacrifices but no passage reclassifies unclean animals. There are several problems with that claim.

First, Leviticus itself does not treat the food laws as an independent moral code detached from Israel's covenantal separation. Leviticus 11 concludes: "This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten" (Leviticus 11:46–47). Leviticus 20 connects those distinctions directly to Israel's separation from the nations: "You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine" (Leviticus 20:25–26). The food distinctions served Israel's covenantal separation from the nations. That is not speculation imposed upon the text. Leviticus states it.

Second, the New Testament does speak directly about food. Jesus taught that nothing entering a person from outside morally defiles him, because it enters the stomach rather than the heart. Mark adds, "Thus He declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:18–19). Jesus then identified the real source of moral defilement: evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. You may argue about the precise grammatical connection of Mark's statement, but the contrast in the passage remains. Food entering the stomach is not the source of spiritual defilement. Sin proceeds from the heart.

Third, Acts 10 cannot be stripped of all relevance to food simply because its ultimate lesson concerned Gentiles. Peter saw unclean animals and heard the command, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat." Peter objected on the basis of the clean and unclean distinction. The answer was, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy" (Acts 10:13–15). Peter later understood that God's central purpose was to teach him not to call any man common or unclean. That is certainly the primary application. But God chose a vision of unclean animals and commanded Peter to eat them. The vision worked because God possesses the authority to remove a former distinction. To say that the vision concerned people is correct. To say that it therefore teaches nothing about the cessation of ritual food distinctions is too narrow.

Fourth, Romans 14 says, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself" (Romans 14:14). Paul later says, "All things indeed are clean" (Romans 14:20). The context concerns eating. Some Christians ate all things, while others ate only vegetables. Paul did not instruct the church to consult Leviticus 11 and distinguish clean animals from unclean animals. He said the one who eats must not regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat must not judge the one who eats, "for God has accepted him" (Romans 14:3). If eating an animal forbidden in Leviticus 11 remained sinful, Paul could not say that nothing is unclean in itself or that God had accepted the person eating it. Christian liberty cannot turn sinful conduct into acceptable conduct.

Fifth, 1 Timothy 4 identifies forbidding foods as part of an apostate teaching. Paul says these foods were "created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth." He then says, "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:3–5). "Nothing is to be rejected" does not fit the claim that animals called unclean in Leviticus remain prohibited to Christians. The "word of God" in that passage does not mean Leviticus 11 continues to prohibit certain creatures. Paul's conclusion is that God's creation may be received with thanksgiving, not that Christians must first sort animals according to Israel's dietary code.

Sixth, Colossians 2 directly forbids Christians from allowing others to judge them "in regard to food or drink." You call this passage disputed, but calling it disputed does not remove its words. Paul joins food, drink, festivals, new moons, and Sabbath days. These are familiar Mosaic categories. He calls them "a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ" (Colossians 2:16–17). The dietary distinction was part of the shadow. Christ is the substance.

You say that Leviticus 11 is grounded in God's holiness and that Peter repeats, "Be holy, for I am holy." Peter's quotation establishes that Christians must be holy. It does not establish that every regulation in the surrounding chapters of Leviticus remains binding. The same section of Leviticus commands regulations concerning sacrifices, childbirth purification, skin diseases, bodily discharges, the Day of Atonement, blood, priestly conduct, mixtures, harvest boundaries, beard trimming, tattoos, mediums, and numerous other matters. One cannot quote the general command to holiness and then assume that every particular expression of Israel's covenantal holiness remains unchanged. Peter applies the enduring principle of holiness under the authority of Christ. He does the same thing when he calls Christians a "holy priesthood" and a "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:5, 9). Christians are not Aaronic priests. Peter uses Israel's language to describe the church's spiritual identity in Christ.

You next appeal to Paul's use of akatharsia in Galatians 5. You say Paul retains Torah's category of uncleanness because he lists porneia, akatharsia, and aselgeia separately. That argument depends on treating every use of the word "uncleanness" as a reference to the ritual categories of Leviticus. Words do not function that way. Context determines meaning. In Galatians 5:19, akatharsia appears between sexual immorality and sensuality. Paul is describing moral impurity, especially impurity associated with sexual sin and corrupt conduct. He is not discussing food. The word is used similarly in Romans 1:24, where God gave sinful people over "in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them." In Ephesians 4:19, it is connected with sensuality and greed. In Ephesians 5:3, it appears with immorality and greed. In Colossians 3:5, it appears with immorality, passion, evil desire, and greed. None of those passages is about pork, shellfish, or Levitical food categories. The existence of moral uncleanness under Christ does not prove the continued legal force of ritual uncleanness under Moses. The English word "unclean" can describe different things in different contexts. An unclean spirit is not an unclean animal. Moral uncleanness is not automatically dietary uncleanness. Sharing vocabulary does not establish identical covenantal application.

You then answer why one may abstain from unclean animals without bringing offerings. You argue that eating is itself prohibited, while an offering required an authorized altar, sanctuary, and priesthood. That explains how you separate the commands, but it does not establish that the food prohibition remains binding upon Christians. It assumes the conclusion. The fact that a command can be practiced without a temple does not prove that it belongs to the new covenant. Circumcision can be practiced without a temple, priesthood, or altar. Sabbath observance can be practiced without offering sacrifices. Tassels can be worn without going to Jerusalem. Mixed fabrics can be avoided anywhere. The prohibition against shaving the edges of the beard does not depend upon the sanctuary. Would you say that each of those remains binding unless the New Testament gives an individual repeal? If not, then "it does not require a temple" cannot be the rule. The New Testament's answer is broader. Christians are not under the Mosaic covenant. Therefore, the question is not whether a command can still physically be performed. The question is whether Christ has placed that command within His covenant.

You say Christ's sacrifice fulfilled the sacrificial remedy but did not erase every act Torah identified as contrary to holiness. I agree that Christ's sacrifice did not make sinful conduct righteous. Adultery, murder, idolatry, theft, greed, and sexual immorality remain sin. They remain sin because they are condemned under Christ's authority and because they violate the moral character of God revealed throughout Scripture. Eating pork is not treated that way in the New Testament. Instead, the New Testament repeatedly speaks of food as a matter in which Christians are not to judge one another.

You then distinguish priestly laws from dietary laws by saying priestly commands were given to Aaron and his sons while dietary laws governed the ordinary conduct of God's people. Again, the fact that one command was given to priests and another to the entire nation does not prove that the command to the nation remains binding upon the church. Circumcision was not limited to priests. The Sabbath was not limited to priests. Passover was not limited to priests. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was not limited to priests. The dietary laws were not the only national commands given to ordinary Israelites. Galatians addresses commands that applied to ordinary Israelites, not merely Aaronic duties. Paul warned Gentile Christians against receiving circumcision, observing days and months and seasons and years, and submitting to the law as a means of covenant identity. Your distinction between priestly commands and ordinary commands therefore does not solve the problem. Many ordinary Israelite commands passed away with the covenant.

You ask why dietary laws rather than another section of Torah and answer that you examine the audience, institution, location, circumstances, and whether later Scripture explains a change. Those are useful exegetical questions, but they do not provide a biblical rule for carrying Mosaic commands into Christ's covenant. They create a system in which you decide which commands appear portable enough to continue. The apostles did not teach Gentile congregations to evaluate each Mosaic command by asking whether it required land, temple, priesthood, or national government. They taught that Christians had died to the law, had been released from it, were not under it, and were under Christ. Paul could not have been clearer in 1 Corinthians 9:20–21. He described himself as behaving among Jews "as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law." Then he described himself among Gentiles as "not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ." Paul did not say that he remained under the non-priestly, non-land-based, moral, purity, and dietary portions of Moses. He said he was not under the law and was under the law of Christ.

You ask for the biblical rule that determines which commands remain applicable. Here is the rule: Jesus Christ possesses all authority, and Christians are governed by the covenant delivered through Him and His apostles. God said concerning Jesus, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him" (Matthew 17:5). Jesus said, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28:18). Hebrews begins by saying that God formerly spoke through the prophets but "in these last days has spoken to us in His Son" (Hebrews 1:1–2). Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth and bring His teaching to their remembrance (John 14:26; 16:13). The early church devoted itself to "the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42). The word spoken by Christ and confirmed by those who heard Him is the covenantal authority for Christians (Hebrews 2:1–4).

That does not mean the Old Testament is discarded. It is inspired, profitable, and necessary for understanding God's plan. It reveals God's character, records His dealings with humanity, supplies examples and warnings, points to Christ, and contains principles that continue to instruct us. But its covenant was given to Israel, and Christians are not under its legal jurisdiction. Commands found in Moses remain binding upon Christians when they are taught under Christ. Murder remains sin. Adultery remains sin. Idolatry remains sin. Theft remains sin. Covetousness remains sin. Love of God and neighbor remain commanded. Their authority over the Christian does not come from our being under Sinai. It comes from their place within the teaching of Christ and His apostles.

You say that when a command defines sin, holiness, righteousness, purity, justice, or love, and Scripture has not rescinded it, you receive it as righteous instruction. But nearly every command in the Mosaic law can be placed into one of those broad categories. Sabbath observance concerned holiness. Circumcision concerned covenant purity. Dietary laws concerned holiness. Sacrificial laws concerned sin and cleansing. Garment laws concerned separation. Agricultural laws concerned justice. Festival laws concerned worship and remembrance. Your categories are so broad that they cannot determine which laws remain binding without first assuming continuity. The New Testament does not tell Christians to begin with Moses and wait for individual rescissions. It tells us to hear Christ.

You acknowledge that I interpret Colossians 2 and Ephesians 2 as abolishing these distinctions but say that citing disputed passages as settled conclusions does not establish my rule. A passage does not lose its force because it is disputed. Every major text in this discussion is disputed because we disagree about it. The question is what the words mean in context. Ephesians 2 says Christ abolished "the Law of commandments contained in ordinances" to create Jews and Gentiles into one new man and reconcile them in one body. The Mosaic law was the wall that distinguished Israel from the nations. Circumcision, food laws, Sabbaths, festivals, and similar regulations visibly maintained that separation. Colossians 2 then names food, drink, festivals, new moons, and Sabbath days and says Christians are not to be judged concerning them because they were shadows and Christ is the substance. These passages directly address the kind of covenantal distinctions you are defending. They cannot be dismissed by saying they are disputed.

You conclude that Scripture does not tell you God changed His holiness, redefined uncleanness, or reclassified animals He called unclean. God did not change His holiness. He changed the covenant through which His people live before Him. The change from clean and unclean animals to Christian liberty does not imply that God formerly made an immoral rule or later became less holy. The food laws served a purpose within Israel's covenant. When the covenantal purpose was fulfilled in Christ, the distinction was no longer imposed upon God's people. This is why Paul could say, "Nothing is unclean in itself." This is why he could say, "All things indeed are clean." This is why he could say, "Everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected." This is why he could say, "No one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink." This is why the apostles refused to place Gentile Christians under the Law of Moses.

You say the questions exposing the source of my distinction remain unresolved. I have now answered that directly. My distinction does not come from dividing Moses into arbitrary sections and choosing which ones I prefer. It comes from the change of covenant and authority taught throughout the New Testament. I do not claim that Christians are under the "moral portion" of Moses while being released from the "ceremonial portion." I say Christians are under Christ. Christ's law contains moral commandments that are consistent with truths taught before, during, and after Sinai. It also contains commands unique to the gospel covenant. The authority is Christ, not a surviving section of Moses.

You ask why the holiness of Leviticus 11 is different from the holiness Peter repeats. The holiness is not different. God is the same holy God. What differs is the covenantal command by which holiness is expressed. Under Moses, holiness included circumcision, dietary distinctions, sacrifices, feast days, ritual cleansing, priestly regulations, and national separation. Under Christ, holiness is expressed through obedience to the gospel, moral purity, separation from sin, love, truth, mercy, faithful worship, and conformity to Christ. The holy God has the right to give different covenantal commands to different people at different times without changing His character. You ask why Paul retains akatharsia while food uncleanness is treated as abolished. Because Paul uses akatharsia to describe moral impurity, not Levitical dietary status. The context establishes that distinction. You say that calling food distinctions old-covenant markers merely repeats the conclusion. Leviticus itself ties those distinctions to Israel's separation from the nations, and the New Testament tells Christians not to be judged in food. That is textual demonstration, not mere assertion.

I am willing to continue examining these passages, but the disagreement must be accurately stated. I am not arguing that God's holiness changed, that the Old Testament became useless, or that Christians may disregard whatever commands they dislike. I am arguing that the Mosaic covenant was given to Israel, served its appointed purpose until Christ, and is no longer the covenant under which God's people live. Christians are under the new covenant, the law of Christ, and the apostolic teaching given by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the burden is not upon me to find an individual repeal for every command given through Moses. The burden is upon anyone binding a Mosaic command upon Christians to show that Christ and His apostles placed that command within the new covenant. On the question before us, the New Testament does not bind Leviticus 11 upon Christians. It teaches the opposite.