Why Don't We Obey All of the Bible?

One reader of the Orlando Sentinel more than a decade ago wanted to know why “Christians pick and choose which Bible verses they take seriously.” It is not a matter of picking and choosing, which would be wrong (and which we have condemned with respect to people denigrating baptism), but what did this person mean? He explains further his objection to Christians.

Why do they condemn gays to eternal damnation, but ignore the Biblical ban against eating shellfish? According to the Old Testament, eating at Red Lobster is as much a sin as same sex marriage (C-6, no date).

To answer the person who wrote it (we'll call him Mortimer) would probably be casting pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6), but there may be people who would like to know if this charge against Christians can be answered. It can.

First of all, however, we note that genuine Christians take seriously all of God's revelation. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Bible is our authority for what we believe, the way we live, and how we worship. Perhaps the mocker who wrote the above words would care to disclose his authority. Himself? we presume.

The next error is that Christians do not condemn homosexuals to eternal damnation. The Scriptures do (if they do not repent). We did not invent morality; God revealed it to us. And it is not just homosexuality that is wrong, although it is (see Romans 1:24-28), many other sins will condemn someone also (see Galatians 5:19-21). All of us have sinned (Rom. 3:23), but we all can repent of our sins and be baptized to have them washed away (Acts 2:38; 22:16).

So, why do we insist on following what the Bible teaches on homosexuality but not shellfish? The answer is very simple. Notice: the prohibition against shellfish is in the Old Testament, as the writer pointed out. We do not live in Old Testament times any longer; Christians live under the New Testament of Jesus Christ. Consider this brief history.

When God created Adam and Eve, He authorized them to eat of the fruits and vegetables in the Garden where He placed them: “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food” (Gen. 1:29). It was not until 1,657 years later that God authorized the eating of animals: “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs” (Gen. 9:3). But when God made a covenant with the nation of Israel, He forbade the consumption of certain meats (Lev. 11). In the new and final covenant, God once again allows all foods (Acts 10:10-20).

By Mortimer's logic, we should all be building an ark because God told Noah to do so. We wouldn't want to be guilty of “picking and choosing,” would we? God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Does that apply to us, also? Of course not. What God commanded the patriarchs and what God commanded the Israelites are not our commandments. We are not required to observe the Passover, and we do not observe the Day of Atonement, either. Those commands were for a specific people at a specific time in history.

A final error in Mortimer's rant is that he says eating at Red Lobster is as much a sin as same-sex marriage. God never used the phrase, same-sex marriage, because the same-sex relationship is wrong from beginning to end. If two thieves got married, would that justify stealing? If two drunkards got married, would that justify alcoholism? God only authorized a man and a woman to marry. What lacks God's authority is sin, but He never specifically called it that.

Another Mocker

Another article from the same time period (2-13-14) featured more mocking on page A14. A woman (whom we will call Ginny) begins her letter to the editor by writing, “If the Bible is infallible, then why are fundamentalists not stoned to death, along with adulterous women and drunken, rebellious sons?”

The answer is the same as before. Under the Christian covenant Jesus did not authorize us to put such individuals to death. Those commands were given to the nation of Israel, whose legal system and religious system were one and the same. That law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), and we have been under the New Testament of Jesus Christ ever since. Christian laws were designed to be obeyed under any political system. We are not a theocracy. But Ginny lumbers blithely on.

Why are they wearing clothing made of two or more fibers together, and shaving their sideburns, eating milk and meat together?

Why are fundamentalist women wearing jeans and slacks and not covering their hair?

In the Bible, the punishment for any of these abominations is death. So why are we not seeing routine, ritual stonings outside fundamental churches as the Bible requires?

It would be tempting to answer this last question by saying, “Because all the immoral women attend liberal churches like the one you go to—not ours.” But that would be presumptuous (maybe even self-righteous). No, the answer remains the same. No New Testament passage calls for Christians to enforce the death penalty for any sin.

It is sad that someone will devote so much time in trying to find contradictions in the Bible—and are blind to how invalid their own argument is. The Bible says Old Testament and New Testament for a reason. The Old is no longer in effect; it has been replaced by the New. The Old was a covenant God made with Israel for a period of time (about 1,500 years). The New is a covenant made with all people of every nation and will be in force until Jesus returns, after which the Day of Judgment occurs.

What? Some of these verses are outdated and no longer “need” to be followed? Which ones? Who gets to decide? And why should the devout put their faith in the “deciders”?

It is not a few verses that are outdated; it's the entire covenant. Man did not invent the system; God did. Therefore, He decides. Has Ginny never read that Jesus “is also the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises, for if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second” (Heb. 8:6-7)? Convinced of her ability to handle the Scriptures, she now draws a judgmental conclusion:

The real abomination is the hypocrisy of fundamentalists who gloss over their own sinfulness while continuing to victimize others for their differentness.

It has already been shown that she fails to understand how the Bible is divided into two different covenants, but based on her misunderstanding of the Scriptures, she is prepared to—not only call others wrong—but hypocrites and an abomination. Come on, Ginny, what do you really think?

Is it possible that people gloss over their own sins? Sure. But if God defines an action as sin, it should surely be recognized as such, even though the rest of us are not perfect. Are there some who victimize others for their “differentness”? Maybe. But ill treatment does not make the victim right—just as ill treatment of Christians does not make them wrong.

Besides, if we are talking about homosexuality, it is not the fact that it is different; it is sin because it violates God's design for marriage. It is the inspired apostle Paul who calls the sin a vile affection and against nature. We do not get to make up our own laws because we would make them to suit ourselves. Truth and morality cannot be subjective (what we desire); only God can provide us with objective truth.