I was reading the bible today and came across, among other interesting passages, Leviticus 3:17 "It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood."

I've never heard of a Christian refusing to eat fat, be it lard or on meat, nor have I heard of a Christian refusing to eat steak rare for religious reasons. Seems clear that this is not an "instruction for the time period" I.e. The rationale I have heard for why Christians don't accede to many of the other more difficult rules of Leviticus (e.g. Shellfish abomination)

Do any Christians practice this, if not, why not (in view of it being a perpetual statute)?

Also interested in a general review of Leviticus since it seems quite a difficult book to reconcile with Christian modernity.

The short answer is that there were different "laws" under the old covenant. Moral, Separation, and Cleanliness. Only the moral ones still apply in the new covenant, since there is no separation between Jews and Gentiles, and we have been made clean by Christ.

Ok but can you provide a citation?

The relationship between the Torah, the covenant with Abraham and the identity of "God's People" (so to speak), and the inclusion of non-Jewish people into the communion of Christians is the topic of quite a lot of Paul's epistles, including much of Romans and Galatians.

Re: reviewing Leviticus, I don't think many Christians are even that familiar with it because of all the books of the Pentateuch, it is the one that has been most moved away from in Christian practice.

So for example a lot of Leviticus has to do with worship in the Temple. The sacrifices and all of that. Paul is responsible for most of the early Christian writing we have which re-imagines Jewish themes around Jesus and the Holy Spirit. In Paul's view the role of the temple is replaced by Christians themselves: "Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?" And of course it wasn't too much later that the Temple was destroyed.

The distinction between kinds of laws that N_R is talking about can I think be simplified into essentially two types: laws that were primarily viewed as symbols of belonging to the covenant, i.e answering "who is Israel?" (circumcision, food laws, not keeping fellowship with non-Jews, temple worship, etc) and moral laws.

There are different interpretations of Paul as to why he considered the covenant laws to have ended or been fulfilled in Jesus. The one that makes the most sense to me has to do with an understanding about the place of the law in relation to the promises to Abraham, especially that Abraham's "seed" would be a light to the entire world. Essentially Paul argues that the Law was part of a long narrative plan by which God, through Jesus, as the representative of Israel, the Messiah, fulfills the promise, insofar that through his death and resurrection Jesus reconciles the entire world to God. There's obviously a great deal more that would be need to make sense of that, but it's the outline

Faith and acceptance of Jesus Christ obsoleted the Torah, which was just a place holder awaiting the arrival of Christ. Paul made this very clear in Foolish Galatians.

Once Jesus arrived, Torah out the window.

Why did they need a place holder? Why not go with the real thing the first time around?

It's difficult to cite one verse in specific, because there is so much written on the covenants. Jeremiah 31:31-40 is one of the first places where the covenant which was to come was mentioned in detail.

If you are really interested in learning more, I would suggest reading Paul's epistles, as well named mentioned, he deals with it in a way where a few verses won't do it justice.

I don't think place-holder is the right analogy, there is a progression, and an understanding which develops, to make the new covenant contextually meaningful.

Well I think it's highly unlikely that Paul's view of the story of creation (as I'm presenting it, more or less following Wright who I've been reading, and understanding that there are other views about what he means in his Epistles) -- from Adam to Christ, with the call of Abraham, the covenant, the promises, the understanding of law, sin, and, death, and of the reconciliation of Christ -- to seem at all coherent and reasonable from a modern point of view. It's a narrative about which you can ask all sorts of "but why X and not Y?" questions.

But for Paul at least it wasn't a placeholder as much as a necessary if not entirely explained step.

So there is this idea that's repeated in Romans twice that somehow it was intended that the law would make sin somehow worse, or that it would reach its full growth because of the law and be recognizable, and that God did that on purpose in order to then condemn sin via Christ.

Interesting.

If the morals of the old covenant prevail, is there any reason that Leviticus 24:20-21 don't?

"Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death."

What is this if not a commentary on morality?

Why was this detour necessary?

Actually, "training wheels" is the better analogy. It explains things much better than place holder.

Because Jesus directly contradicted it.

Which makes it clear that this outline we're giving is an oversimplification, at least insofar as there being some clearly delineated line between "kinds" of laws. The biblical authors don't talk about the law in this way, nor do they make an effort to resolve every question about the relationship between Jewish tradition and the new community.

It's obvious that the early Jewish Christians consider themselves to be involved with the story of Israel and Israel's God, but Paul focuses on the narrative of the covenant promises, the blessings and curses of the law, exile and return, as in Deuteronomy 30 and Isaiah 40-55. At the same time, Paul also believes that God has dome something in Jesus that none of the Hebrew prophets knew about or anticipated:

So The principle given (covenant law vs moral law) doesn't originate from the Bible but is a somewhat rough approximation of what it is the early Christians seemed to decide to do. The major innovation over Judaism was the inclusion of the gentiles into the community, and figuring out their relation to the Hebrew law and covenant was both a theological and a practical problem. Paul's theology of Christ Crucified and his explication of the law as a "tutor" is a theological response. Discontinuity with some of the Hebrew moral law is probably due both to Jesus and to dealing with the practicalities of believers who had no knowledge of Judaism, although at the same time Paul's writing urges gentile Christians to a moral practice that very much overlaps with Hebrew morality.

Like ive said before i think Jewish people would disagree. All Laws were moral ones.

That's not an answer to my question.

Jews most definitely disagree, but it's more because they never accepted the new covenant, obviously, since they never accepted Christ.

You've brought up this objection before, and one thing I think you're overlooking is that IF Christians are wrong about this as you have mentioned, it is a interpretation error, not a wilful disregard for morality or law, especially when it comes to the dietary laws. To say that committed and devout people eat shellfish or pork, despite knowing it's wrong, simply because they want to, doesn't really add up to me. Why not just discard everything altogether? If you can throw away some laws, just throw away everything... They have adopted the new covenant, because they believe it is biblically accurate to do so, not because it is easier.

That aside, there is so much in the bible, particularly in the writings of Paul, and the gospels, (well known has mentioned some points already) to point to a new covenant, and why we should not be under the law anymore, that it's difficult to take this criticism seriously.

This is a difficult question. Why does God like covenants in the first place?

What is obvious is the progression in relationship with God, which may have been obscured, and lost in meaning, if the new covenant arrived from the start.

Also, Christ needed to die first, which would also have been severely lacking context and meaning if he died in the garden of eden, for instance.

They didn't differentiate their laws afaik. Don't know about the rest.

Oh and one of the so called moral laws did change. Divorce. I know it didn't really change....

I think divorce is a bad example, because it is explained by Jesus pretty well, but you seem to know that. You'd likely have a stronger argument if you take something like polygamy.

Obviously when Christians say that they think they no longer need to pay a lot of attention to certain things in the Torah it doesn't mean that Jews agree, nor am I arguing that Christians are right and Jews wrong. But it's a matter of fact that Christians both saw (and see) themselves as continuing on the story of Israel (and being inheritors of the promises to Abraham) and as being discontinuous with Judaism in other ways.

Whether or not "laws really changed" is the sort of question I suppose you'd have to ask God, if he were having a press conference, along with the question about why the elements of the story are necessary. Although it could be said that the Bible doesn't really claim that this is necessary in any logical sense. It claims that God willed it to be so

Its not even just Jews who would disagree. Christian Judaizers would too.

But yeah i understand all that. Just think Christian look pretty twisty when they talk about the Law. It didn't change it got fulfilled and those weren't moral laws...

granted

edit: I'll grant your edit also. I already basically did when I said I didn't think that Paul's narrative is likely to seem coherent and reasonable from a modern perspective. It is part of a rather complex world view, culture, and religion

In my opinion many of the laws laid out in OT are not actually about morality. The story of the OT is about Yahweh's relationship with the people of Israel.

Many of the laws seem arbitrary and I believe that is the point. God wants Israel to be a people set apart and devoted to Him. I don't think God has any specific preoccupation with foreskins or eating blood or mixing textiles or whatever...

If Israel acknowledges God as their Master/Lord/Leader etc. they will obey his commands. I view the OT law to be a test of relationship, not an outline of morality for all of humankind.

The whole purpose of the old covenant was to produce Christ. Despite the Jews many times messing things up, disobeying the mosaic law, falling victim to idolatry even they managed to do it. The old covenant served its purpose, now we have the new covenant with Jesus.

As Christians we have a lot more freedom in that we are only essentially governed by 2 laws. Matthew 22:36-40.

A lot of the Jews back in the first century had a lot of trouble dropping the law and adapting to the new covenant. The circumcision issue is an example of this. Paul's words at Galatians 5:2 spring to mind.

Obvious: "Because I the LORD don't change" (Malachi 3:6).

Can someone explain why, in general, the only thing out of Leviticus modern Christians acknowledge as an ongoing commandment are the prohibitions against homosexuality?