[...] Keller nails it in this article. So thankful for his ministry. If you haven’t read anything by Tim Keller, I’d highly [...]

[...] the article below, Tim Keller provides some excellent insight as to how we are to understand the relationship of the Old [...]

I think that the issue is more fundamental than what Keller is suggesting. I propose that to be entirely consistent, we should say that the ENTIRE law has been fulfilled in Christ. Christians are not under obligation to any aspect of the Mosaic Law (even if the categories of civil, ceremonial, and moral law are valid - which they are not). By definition, ALL Law is moral in that it expresses the will of a Holy God and his righteous requirements. I find that this practice of categorizing laws into so-called moral, civil and ceremonial (and then dismissing the civil and ceremonial from consideration for application to the believer today) insinuates that the civil and ceremonial laws are non-moral (immoral?). This is ridiculous. However, since all law is rooted in God's holy character, each can teach us about behaviors/attitudes that are pleasing to God. Moreover, the motive for obeying OT Law was not from a sense of fear of punishment, but reather was the grateful response to the God who had expressed his love and care and promises to the individuals who were members of his covenant people. As members of the covenant people of God, we should look to the instructions (in the OT and the NT) and should seek to apply these in ways taht demonstrate our love and gratitude to God.

[...] 3. Rob uses the commands of the Old Testament Law that Christians do not follow today (wearing different kinds of fabric, etc.) to disregard the Old Testament regulations about human sexuality (except for promiscuity, see above). For an articulate response to this line of thinking, please read Tim Keller’s blog post on “Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’.” [...]

Great post.

In truth, there's not a one of us who has gotten past the first Commandment, anyhow.

We are our own little gods and therefore we are toast...unless the real God saves us. And He has done just that in Jesus.

Nonbelievers will never understand us, or God, until they receive (by God's grace) faith in the One who came to save the ungodly. The likes of you and me.

Your comment seems to be ignoring Peter's vision in Acts 10:9-16. This is an issue that was most certainly debated and concluded 2000 years ago.

I would point you to Mark 2:27-28 as well as the actual wording of Exodus 20. The law calls for 6 days of work and the seventh day being one of rest and dedication to the Lord. It does not establish which day is to be considered the "first".

[...] in the answer to her conundrum, I would suggest she read Tim Keller’s insightful article, “Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency.’”  Considering how many times this question concerning the so-called “inconsistent” [...]

I would only like to ask everyone here: Why evangelic christians FOLLOW ROME, when it is ROME who states when "easter" should be held on a ROMAN calendar... instead of keeping Passover by following GOD's calendar stated in Exodus 12 ?

Sam you hit the nail on the head.

[Tim is offering a defense against those uninformed people who assume a position of theological authority in accusing Christians of being 'inconsistent'.]

But if his "defense" is weak and easily crushed, then we should abandon it and use a better defense. Tim's argument fails in several areas (as mentioned in a few other comments already). We shouldn't shut our eyes to that just because he's "Tim Keller" or just because he's talking to unbelievers. We should have *good* reasons to believe what we believe... not just any old reason that we can come up with.

WATYF

That was great Jer.

[...] poikilosSpacecraft 3D, An Augmented Reality App For iPad And iPhoneSpacecraft 3D, An Augmented Reality App For iPad And iPhoneMaking Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’ – The Gospel Coalition Blog [...]

[...] Making Sense of Scripture’s “Inconsistency.” A good answer against accusations that Christians just “pick and choose” what we want from the Bible when we don’t obey some of the obscure OT laws. Bekahcubed touched on this as well in a great post about why we don’t follow the OT food laws. [...]

[...] Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’ – I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits, or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because “they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey.” Most often I hear, “Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts—about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn homosexuality. Aren’t you just picking and choosing what you want to believe from the Bible?”  I don’t expect everyone to understand that the whole Bible is about Jesus and God’s plan to redeem his people, but I vainly hope that one day someone will access their common sense (or at least talk to an informed theological adviser) before leveling the charge of inconsistency. – Tim Keller [...]

Sometimes it seems that Tim, as good as He is with the OT text and going into the hebrew text, he is still tainted by man's theological traditions that might not be all so biblical nor orthodox, as much as they are the logic of men.

Upon reading the OT carefully there are qualifiers for when, who, how the laws should be observed. In accordance to that, many laws do not apply to us because the qualifications are simply not there (eg, most animal offering requires a specific location, ie Temple in Jerusalem). Same with most cleanliness laws, they are tied to entering the temple. In fact sacrificing outside of the location indicated by God and by one annointed was considered transgression actually.

One needs to looks at each law, case by case, and carefully check the qualifiers.

On the other hand, it is not about keeping or not keeping a specific law, but about relationship with God. Reading the OT requires skill, and not many have it.

I think what we need to realize also is that there are degrees of seriousness in breaking the law, and if we are going to start checking, one might as well start with the most serious of all which is pride and self righteousness. And as you've guessed it, we are all guilty of this one.

[...] “Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’” by Tim Keller:  “I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits, or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because ‘they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey.’  Most often I hear, ‘Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts—about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on.  Then they condemn homosexuality.  Aren’t you just picking and choosing what you want to believe from the Bible?’” [...]

One last comment came to mind. Keller’s position that ‘[i]t would, therefore, be deeply inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible as a whole if we continued to follow the ceremonial laws’ after Jesus’s death assumes that earthly sacrifices and Jesus’s sacrifice had the same purpose and are, therefore, mutually exclusive. But Scripture does not make the claim that the purpose is the same. Paul certainly had no trouble sacrificing a sin offering even after he had already accepted Jesus as his Saviour (Acts 21:17–26). I doubt Keller would say that Paul was undermining Jesus’s sacrifice.

[...] 7. Have you ever had someone question how you can say you believe the Bible and yet, you don’t follow the Old Testament dietary laws?  In other words, can we make sense of the Scripture’s “inconsistencies?”  Tim Keller helps us greatly. [...]

I think we as Christians are "called out" for being inconsistent b/c we fail at the very thing Jesus wanted us to known for -- "love". By challenging our neighbor's marriages, citizenship status, or moral aptitude, we become known for our judgements - not our love.

Jesus amazingly held up Samaritians and Roman offices as examples of good stewardship while he ministered on earth. He allowed the woman at the well (who was living with a man who was not her husband) to call and bring in an entire town to be saved. Would any of Jesus' disciples or the church leaders have done such a thing? No, they would have scoffed at her.

Until we learn to go out to the people we "disagree" with and show them true love, we will always be called hypocrites...and the fact is - the Gentiles are right, we are. But instead of insisting that we aren't, and that they are wrong, we should accept the fact that we fail at showing God's love to the world - and then pray and ask God's guidance on HOW to love the neighbor we feel is on a wayward path. Otherwise, we will just turn into the very people who put Jesus to death b/c HIS way was not our way.

[...] is a clearly written article by Tim Keller on how and how Christians should respond to accusations of inconsistency in regard to [...]

Not offended at all. I appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation. The central question people have to ask is, "How am I going to respond to Jesus?" I have found that the main problem is not intellectual at all. It is a moral dilemma. People know that if they trust Christ, they have to give up serving their own interests and submit to him. Man's natural response to this is disgust. However, Christ made claims that no other religious leader made, i.e., equality and oneness with God. He backed up these claims by foretelling his own resurrection and then actually being resurrected. To ignore the resurrection is to ignore one of the most well documented, "provable" events in history. Thus, the Christ event must be dealt with by every human being.

[...] Tim Keller addresses the so-called issue of Scriptural “inconsistency” in his post Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’.  He introduces the topic with some thoughts that will likely ring a bell with many of us: I find [...]

I think you're right that it most likely is a moral dilemma for many people. I do know many people also though that it IS an intellectual dilemma. I disagree with you concerning christ being the only person to make such heady claims. I think there were lots of people that have done that over the years. I've heard there were even some that came before christ and made very similar claims (Horus, etc..). I'm not sure of the veracity of those claims (about the claims), so I'm not going to offer them up here.

While he DID apparently make a prediction concerning rising from the dead, that by no means factually happened. So he claimed it, then a little later it plays out in the same book that he predicted it in. No honest historian believes that their is reliably written evidence that there was miraculous event and someone arose from the dead. Non-miraculous events are often hard to prove. Miraculous ones..impossible. I've seen numerous events happen in my own life and even 5 years later no one can get the details even close to correct. I would never trust a story told 30+ years later. Never!

If you think that the resurrection is "provable", then by all means, I'd like to see the evidence. If you want to use some sort of written proof like a high number of written accounts that have been copied, then you had best prepare to disprove a LOT of claims of other deities. Most major religions have books that describe miraculous events. I've heard that believers try and claim that since they have so many copies of their not-so early documents that amounts to proof. In my book, that amounts to "having a lot of copies of something".

Steve...you seem like a nice guy and I'm enjoying this calm and peaceful back and forth. If you're interested in an easier to utilize format (like email), my address is jipock@gmail.com (although, if you don't want to get that personal, this forum is fine also.)

Evangelicals have not always adequately recognized how the Bible itself reflects the concessionary nature of God’s dealings with humanity. Divine concession started early in history with the convergence of a divine promise and a divine concession. This set a new kind of starting point and tone for the ways of God with humans:

“‘Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease’” (Gen. 8:21b-22, NIV).

We might not like to hear it, but we should be humble enough to admit the staggering truth that, “every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood.” This is a divine assessment of humanity and it’s notably the second appearance of it (see: Genesis 6:5-7).

Everything in history is affected by the truth in Gen. 8:21b-22 - including Scripture itself.??

Many parts of the Old Testament will be misunderstood if we miss the point about concession. The Old Testament reflects many concessions related to life in Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures with their fallen social structures and hardened hearts (see: Matthew 19:3-9). The Old Testament law is often concessionary to ANE social structures and realities. It doesn’t always reflect God’s perfect will but His will in the context of concession. The Old Testament was never meant to be a final guide for human beings. It testifies to its own insufficiency by pointing to the coming of a New Covenant (see: Jeremiah 31; Ez. 36, Hebrews).

We should not be surprised to find some strange things in the Old Testament, because (as a cursory reading of ANE history will validate), they were strange times. Again, we must recognize how God mercifully meets people where they are and graciously condescends to reach out to them.

The OT days are summarized as times when God “let all nations go their own way” (Acts 14:15); times “when He held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past ” (Romans 3:25-26); times when He “endured with much patience vessels of wrath” (Romans 9:22-23) and times when He “overlooked such ignorance” (Acts 17:30-31).

Divorce was permitted (in some cases) as an accommodation to realities of life in a sinful world (see: Matthew 19:3-9). It was not God’s plan from the beginning just as many things were not God’s plan from the beginning nor His perfect will. When hard hearts brought destitution on others, divine allowances outside of God’s perfect plan were permitted in the mercy of God (see: Exodus 21:10-11; 1 Corinthians 7:15).

Even when Jesus said, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,’” he was (in some way) dealing in the realm of concession. Jesus’ words should be understood as a provision not a prescription but He they were given in a context of concession because of the hardness of sinful hearts. ??

For more on this: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/addition-to-tim-kellers-thoughts-about-the-bible/

One thing I have learned while studying biblical nomology, specifically whether the Torah has regulatory force for new covenant believers, is that there is no position that is fool proof. The Bible itself is inconsistent with some statements compared to others on this topic. The most obvious hurdle for Keller’s position is Matt. 5:17–20 (discussed below).

Keller’s focus seems to be on unbelievers trying to undermine Christianity. What Keller does not address are the possible Messianic interpretations which use the same type of argument (although usually more nuanced and technical) to support Torah observance.

Keller’s argument that the OT hints at the cessation of the cult is disappointing. All of his references (1 Sam. 15:21-22; Ps. 50:12-15; 51:17; Hos. 6:6) rely on dialectical negation (a.k.a. relative condemnation) to make the point that without the right heart attitude, worshiping God through the cult is meaningless. It strongly goes against the OT grain to argue that the authors/redactors thought they were hinting at the cessation of the sacrificial system. It is highly doubtful they thought anything of the sort.

Keller also does not engage in any Messianic interpretations when he takes the common argument that Jesus declared all foods clean to eat in Mark 7:19 as a priori. The context is dealing explicitly with washing hands before eating bread (not a prohibited food) as a ‘tradition of men’ (v. 8 ESV). Jesus is actually concerned with upholding God’s Torah and not allowing the tradition of men to ‘[make] void the word of God’ (v. 13). Even more startling is the fact that the Greek text does not contain the words ‘Thus He.’ The ESV translators, for example, have taken the present participle, ?????????, as a parenthetical statement, forcing them to add ‘Thus he’ based on their decision to translate ???????? as ‘to declare clean’ instead of ‘to make clean.’ ????????? ????? ?? ??????? does not have to be a parenthetical statement but can be a continuation of Jesus’s sentence. The NKJV, for example, takes this approach when in translating Mark 7:18–19 as ‘Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?’ It is possible that Jesus is not annulling the dietary laws, contradicting his own concerns that God’s Torah be upheld in Mark 7:1–13. Jesus may be talking about defecating, using this moment to teach about the importance of the heart-attitude of the believer. Even if one translates this passage as the ESV does, it does not automatically follow that the declaration about all foods being clean is referring to the Lev. 11 dietary laws. The ambiguity allows for Jesus to be discussing the ritual purity laws as the Pharisees were applying them to already permissible food. This seems more likely given the broader context of Jesus’s concern about maintaining God’s laws of the tradition of men.

It also seems a bit of a stretch to say that Jesus ‘ignored the Old Testament cleanliness laws’ by ‘touching lepers and dead bodies.’ There was no prohibition against touching lepers or dead bodies. It was, in fact, a necessity and required by God to touch them for proper purposes (e.g. for burial). It was only violating the law if one entered the temple after touching anything unclean without becoming ritually purified. (I’m probably the most disappointed with Keller on this point. I would have thought this an easier distinction to identify.)

Keller is certainly right that the message God gives his people with many of the Levitical laws is that God is wholly other (a.k.a. holy) and the profane cannot access the holy. As his people, we must also be holy and set ourselves apart from the profane and secular. This is ultimately accomplished by Jesus but is not mutually exclusive with Torah observance.

The book of Hebrews is ambiguous with the effect the cross had on the cult. In 8:4, the implication is that the cult continues, in a couple other spots, the implication is that the cult has been replaced. In most of the book, the author is either silent or his message can be taken either way. This contradiction and ambiguity must be understood within the broader rhetorical world of Hebrews. The author is not concerned whether the cult continues or is replaced. He is concerned that his audience understands the incomparable value of Jesus’s sacrifice and honour of Jesus’s position as our high priest. Therefore, Hebrews does not really help in determining the status of the Torah as regulatory for the new covenant believer. (I hesitate to get more into this line of thought since too much space is required in the comments section of a blog to set up the entire argument here. Please ask questions if you wish to hear more of this argument.)

Keller runs up against his biggest challenge, in my opinion, when he says, ‘If the New Testament has reaffirmed a commandment, then it is still in force for us today.’ Jesus, in the New Testament of course, says, ‘For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 5:18–19). Since Jesus reaffirms all of the Torah instructions in the New Testament, then, as per Keller’s position, all are still in force for new covenant believers today.

I definitely agree with Keller’s position on the civil aspect of the law. Those instructions which are predicated on a theocracy are not feasible because a theocracy does not exist. But that does not mean these instructions have been abolished.

If I were to argue that any portion or the entirety of the OT law has been abolished, I would take another, more fundamental approach. But my post is already too long. =)

[...] The following excellent article first appeared in Redeemer Presbyterian Church’s monthly Redeemer Report. It then was re-posted at The Gospel Coalition.    [...]

[...] about Jesus and God’s plan to redeem his people, but I vainly hope that one day someone will access their common sense (or at least talk to an informed theological adviser) before leveling the charge [...]

[...] Gospel Coalition published a great blog post by Dr. Tim Keller of Redeemer Church in NYC, called Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’.  In it, Keller combats the idea that there is a disconnect between the Old Testament and the New [...]

[...] Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’ | Tim Keller | Gospel Coalition | I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits, or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because “they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey.” Most often I hear, “Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts. ” Read Post [...]

This is not a coherent argument, though it IS an evangelical one. That's the thing about evangelical intellectuals: always a hermeneutic of generosity w/r/t the Bible and often just barely enough knowledge to sound authoritative. This article proves nothing apart from its author's own willingness to impress himself with tautologies. Not trying to sound too harsh, but this is not real biblical scholarship.

I have thoroughly appreciated the discussion and Keller's responses.

Though, it seems narrow to say there "are only two options" and that we "can't follow the 'clean laws', etc." The other option would be that Jesus is the Messiah who died for us, but his intention was not to keep us from the commandments but rather give us the freedom to do them in "perfect love". And thus, Christians could be called inconsistent in that we don't give the 'other' commandments as much weight as we should.

As a few examples:
- What about Paul purposing to give sacrifices (vow of Nazirite in Numbers 6) in Acts 21?
- What about the KJV alternate translation of Mark 7:19?
- And the letter to the churches in Acts 15? Are all of those 'moral laws' as well?

How about this understanding: http://ffoz.org/blogs/2012/05/is_the_bible_bs.html

I was only addressing that the ones that needed ingrafted include some that are originally Jewish. Patrick's comment, that I was addressing, read as if the only group needing ingrafted were Gentiles.

If that wasn't his intent, I apologize for the presumptuous corrective - but it is a common error that I encounter. As common an error as "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered you together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"

Also... So you agree one some things. That's easy, so do the muslims, the hindus, the mormons, and everyone else. That doesn't point to your beliefs being inspired. The issue isn't that you agree on a few things, it's that you ALL disagree on so much. We can't forget the supernatural factor here. Christians, according to the bible, have a supernatural teacher that is living right inside of them. The disagreements are a flag being raised that that claim doesn't look to be substantiated...

[...] Making sense of Scripture’s ‘inconsistency’. [...]

Here's the problem..

You can't prove that any particular being created the universe. Every follower of every deity will say their deity created it. I've talked to dozens of them, they all believe their deity did it. You might believe it, but you certainly can't prove it.

I certainly don't think I'm fallen, nor do I think anyone else is. This sounds like a problem created so someone could sell something to me!

Lots if prophecies in the OT about this and then lots of fulfillment in the NT..written by people that had read the OT and may well have had an agenda..

An event witnessed by hundreds of people, almost none of which saw fit to document it, and the ones that did couldn't agree on how it went down.

"Believers have the Holy Spirit, who is God, indwelling them. He guides them into truth as the Scriptures promise."

No, I think it's safe to say this isn't true by a demonstration of the facts and a simple scrolling up of the comment section here...

Almost every church considers themselves "bible believing" and yet..we have something like 30,000 plus denominations that can't agree.. In my town we literally have a church on every corner..that's because they can't agree on what the bible says.

I'm afraid this all adds up to doubt for me and a lot of other people. If you wonder why young adults are leaving their faith at an alarming rate..this could be a good part of it.

Here's a few things we all agree on. God created the universe. Man is sinful and fallen. Jesus is God. Jesus lived a sinless life, died a horrific death (prophesied over and over in the OT),and was raised to life, an event witnessed by hundreds of people living at the time. In order to escape the penalty of sin, one must place his or her trust in Christ for eternal life. Believers have the Holy Spirit, who is God, indwelling them. He guides them into truth as the Scriptures promise. Go into any truly Bible believing church, and you will find these truths believed and articulated consistently.

Hi Everyone --

A couple of responses:

1. It's clear from reading the whole Bible that the coming of Christ means there is both continuity and discontinuity between how believers obeyed God in the Old Testament and how they obeyed him in the New Testament. That's the fundamental point--and therefore Christians should not be called inconsistent for following some of the OT rules for behavior and not others. To insist they follow them all is to essentially deny the importance of Jesus Christ.

2. The Three-Fold division of the law is one way to help believers understand where there is continuity and discontinuity. Overall, I think it holds up, making me a traditional Presbyterian, since the division is affirmed in our Westminster Confession. There are still disagreements as to how it is applied, even among proponents--the main point of contention is over the Sabbath. A good, recent book supporting the traditional view is "From the Finger of God" by Philip Ross.

3. Don Carson and others are right in pointing out the problems of the Three-fold division, that it is too simplistic, how it over 'domesticates' Paul's views--but in the end Don grants it's helpfulness, once you do some deeper thinking about Paul's understanding of the continuities and discontinuities between the old covenant and being in Christ. I agree, and I know it is a bit artificial. But, as a working pastor, I have found that giving lay people the Three-Fold division is the simplest, least confusing way to help them navigate an area of great Biblical complexity--and yet an area they must navigate in order to decide how to live their lives. I tell them it's not a perfect system, and that there remains some areas where people will disagree (like on Sabbath observance), but for most of the Biblical material it works well. (The same could be said to be true for other formulations of Systematic Theology that seek to schematize complex Biblical material, as in the areas of free will and God's sovereignty, etc)

Justin Taylor had a very helpful summary post on the subject of the Three-Fold Division about two years ago here - http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/09/27/on-the-tripartite-division-of-the-law/

Hope this helps a bit

[...] but it articulates what I've been wanting to say for a long time. Found this also on Breakpoint. Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’ – The Gospel Coalition Blog Bob Yoshimaru Calvary Baptist Church, Coquitlam British Columbia Baptist Conference, Baptist [...]

K, well I guess since no one responded to this, I'll state why I posted it (and question why Keller didn't approach it this way as well):

Ceremony was atonement for our sins, until Christ came and was the perfect sacrifice. Although Jesus was the end-all for these ceremonies, it doesn't change sin or our sin nature. That is why our faith now rests in that atonement, that we believe Jesus' death on the cross is our way to be with the Father, and we confess and repent. That's all.

I guess I'm confused as to why this is so difficult to grasp and explain. Isn't this the core of Christianity? I always assumed this was Christianity 101.

We are no longer under the Law, but under grace. Grace through faith in Christ. Sinners (everyone) still sin, but forgiveness of those sins no longer come through sacrifice, but through faith in Christ.

Am I being way, way to simple on this?

In terms of punishment for sins (stoning to death), wasn't Jesus clear that we're all deserving of death for our sins (which we know, the wages of sin is death)? Didn't Jesus teach us to extend grace to others as God has/does, and rather than fast-tracking to condemnation under the Law, we should be praying for those who commit such punishable sin? The Pharisees killed an innocent man, and instead of asking the Father to condemn them, he prayed for their forgiveness. Jesus is God, and he's showing us that our priorities are wrong. Those who refuse to repent have already accepted their eternal punishment, stoning to death changes nothing about that.

Okay, that was a long post. Father, please bless everyone here today!

Dr. Keller isn't trying to make a full apologetic for Christianity. He is providing a summary response to one common criticism from unbelievers and as such I find it quite coherent and reasonable. It is not meant to be a lesson in hermeneutics. When Christians argue about obscure points of doctrine in a forum
like this, we destroy both our unity and credibility with outsiders. I guess if you think your point is really important you may be bound by your conscience to address it, but it just seems like this isn't the best place.

[...] Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’ [...]

I am grateful for the article, I agree with it's main point and especially find the proposed response to this line of questioning very helpful.

I going to cautiously say I have some problems, along with others here, with what I see as the man-decided deliniation of the Law. I believed Christ fullfilled the entire law, however you or the early church wants to divy it up. (For unbelievers the law still serves a different purpose).

I don't find much in the NT that would support a certain codified portion of the law be carried forward as 'moral law'. Minimally I would rather explain it as the law of Love is what continues, and it's expression is different in a Spiritual kingdom as opposed to a physical one - which explains the lack of application of 'ceremonial' and 'civil' laws. It's much cleaner and clearer to me this way, fits better with what I see in Scripture, although admittedly my mind functions on a 3rd grade level compared to Dr. Keller and many others who would disagree.

Now we live in the new life of the Spirit, and under the law of Christ which is love. The NT provides much clear instruction on how we live out the law of love for sure. But as we go to the cross to know what love is, it 'does no harm to it's neighbor' and 'does good to enemies'. The power of true love as understood at the cross, that causes one to be born again, doesn't need to have a written code that says 'don't murder' or 'don't lie'. There is a freedom in the law of Christ that Augustine famously summarized 'Love God and do as you please'. Or as Jesus said the whole law is summed up by love, for God and neighbor. As Paul put it Rom 7 'we serve in the new way of the Spirit not in the old way of the written code'.
Also Rom 13:8-10, John 13:34, 1 John chapters 2 + 3, 2nd John also. John particularly seems to say that what Christians do is follow Jesus teachings, which are summarized by love.

Addressing Tim's most kind responsse to this thread.

1. Agreed. Christians are not inconsistent in following the bible because all bets are off once Jesus showed his face. He represents the fullest revelation of what god looks like in human form.

However, I feel that Christians should be viewed as inconsistent based on the plain language definitions of their various inerrancy statements. I realize that they all are nuanced, but that does not take away from the fact that the obvious and plain reading of most of them say something like the bible is 100% true throughout the whole thing. Redefining terms like "in error" and "inconsistent" are not very conducive to a chohesive Christianity.

2. The Tree-fold view, in my uneducated opinion, is a good short hand way of referring to chunks of text and law. If all we are doing is teaching introductory courses to the bible for new Christians then it is great. It is exactly like teaching students that Isaac Newton's laws of motion are indeed laws. But the fact is that as soon as you start looking at the details and the limits (orbital patterns for Newton, Gays, slavery, women etc for the bible) then those laws quickly break down. In both cases we start to run into problems when we try to apply the words and laws to some of the more difficult situations. In those cases we should not use them.

3. With respect Tim (and you are my favorite TGC person), you need a stronger stance than saying they are not perfect. I ask that you say more specifically how they are not perfect because they are being used beyond their useful limits and that is unfair to everyone involved.

Thanks for the discussion, god bless, and this is great fun!

Thanks Dr. Keller for masterfully parsing out the categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial law. What a tremendous help!

Rom. 6:14?

Understanding what changed between the old and new covenants is a great step toward removing what the world sees as "inconsistencies" in the Bible. See http://jaylehman.com/2011/11/biblical-perplexities-and-the-new-covenant/

"When Christ appeared he declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19)" lol sorry yall but your looking at this through Greek eyes. You see in the Jewish mindset Pork and other unclean things was not ever food to begin with, they were called trifle and never even called it food. You see back then many pharisees were making their own man made law saying that certain foods were not kosher when they really were. Jesus just says that to condemn the man-made laws. If you don't believe me then research it for yourself. You have to look at the Bible with eyes of a Jew and not with the eyes of your own culture.

Thanks for sharing Tim. This is helpful.

Wow...I must have sausage fingers. So many errors. Wanted to clarify two things. I'm only in good standing with God because of Jesus, and because I accept him as my savior. Also...I think Christ left us with a new command, to love others as he has...with grace, compassion, selflessness and patience. I also believe God has established a NEW covenant with his people...and the covenant us we're forgiven, for everything, for ever. We can't change it because it's a covenant God keeps and he promises nothing, nothing...not even "sinful" behavior from a believer will negate that. Period. That is the absolutely fantastic news if the gospel as I understand it.

Geez, I know this is Tim Keller's post, and the dude is wise, and has benefitted the kingdom greatly (not to mention my own walk) but and so it's with hesitation I even write. (This comment could be splitting hairs, which i know is pointless, but something in me tells me it's worth writing.)

I can't help but believe something was missed here. Yes he wrote about Jesus as ultimate sacrifice, how the penalty of sin is paid...but then goes on to say sins are still sins and after Christ the penalty of "sins" is now different.

But my understanding is that the penalty is in fact, the same. Death. The penalty of sin hasn't changed. At all. I agree it glhas been paid IN FULL and so there is nothing left for us to pay. That is why I don't have to sacrifice or be clean. I get to walk yand in hand with God, no if ands or buts. I no longer have to worry about my "standing" with God. My standing is considered forever good. And that...that is fantastic news! The Old Testament rituals don't apply to me. I don't even ha e to worry a out keeping the Ten Commandments. My salvation is in no way based on my behavior...the penalty of my sin is FULLY paid for. (I agree that the Ten Commandments show God's desire for how he wants us to live and that old testament laws show us what God finds worthy and valuable...and to come into alignment with those things us good. Very good. But they are now just insights to God's character and no longer law. I am no longer bound by the old law, in any way...thats the whole message of the new testament, and why there is an "inconsistancey" with how Christians live now compared to Old Testament law.

I just felt compared to share, and I do so realizing Keller is reaching out to the masses here and not seeking theological debate, of which I'm horrible at anyway, as I know so little about my own faith. And again, I have a huuuuge respect for Keller who has benefitted my life greatly. Finally, i typed thus on my phone, so there are tons of soelling/grammar errors. My apologies.

BTW, I don't intend to come across offensively. I'm sure most of the people commenting here are fine people.

Thankful for Keller's wisdom here. I share is frustration with the secular world that thinks itself a theological know-it-all when it comes to this issue. This is a crucial area of understanding for Christians today.

John, do you sin? Yes. Is it okay for you to sin? No. So, there is SOME moral law 'binding on us'. Let's just say it's God's moral law, no? If you're in the vein of "the ten commandments don't apply anymore" then I would recommend NOT killing anyone as a case study. We'll take your word for it. ;)

@Steve: You make the common error of believing that your deities document is perfectly consistent and well supported by the evidence, even when there are millions of people that can demonstrate that this just isn't the case. Every believer of every deity that ever was that had a document considered their document to be inspired and consistent with their beliefs. The quran is a FAR better example of a consistent document (yet I assume you do not consider it valid). Fulfilled prophecy would be great, but 99% of of it's evidence for fulfillment comes from the new testament as a perfect example of circular reasoning. It's common to blame the humans when there are errors to be pointed out.

Sincere believers (if Christianity is true) have an all powerful, all knowing deity living right inside of them. There is no good excuse for all of this disconnect from a large group of people that can simply pray for guidance and expect to receive it. Am I to believe that these fine students of the bible have simply forgotten to ask for guidance in these matters? I've read the bible at least 30 times over the years, it's pretty clear, ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find. Certainly the deity of the bible wouldn't ignore a sincere request from a believer to have the truth of the scripture revealed, yet..the evidence doesn't support that this happens at all. As a group, believers can't agree on much, you can blame the humans, but that just doesn't fly. You can say that you all agree on the big ticket items, but that doesn't fly either. Would you really be will to say that some parts of "God's" word just aren't that important?

While even "rudimentary" study of textual criticism of the bible should reveal its inerrancy, many a biblical scholar can't agree on many of the topics right within it after doing FAR more than a rudimentary study...

Be aware..only believers believe that "God's" word is perfectly consistent. Keep in mind also that believers with other holy scriptures believe that their scriptures are perfectly consistent.

respectfully.

David: As one of the "dissenting commenters" as you put it, I have considered the context of Keller's post. I understand what he is doing. While I appreciate his intent, my objections to his inconsistencies with Scripture in this attempt do not involve what may be minimized as splitting theological hairs. If care is not taken in such an apologetic fuel may in fact be added to the critics' fire, and what is presented as a solution actually can exacerbate the problem.

@Jimmy: You make the common error of evaluating Christianity by observing flawed, imperfect Christians. Just because sincere believers disagree over finer points of theology, that does not mean the Bible is flawed. To the contrary, God's word is perfectly consistent. It's man's understanding that's flawed. Even a rudimentary study of textual criticism, fulfilled prophecy, and archaeological corroboration indicates that the Bible is uniquely inspired.

Dissenting commenters... consider the context here. Tim is offering a defense against those uninformed people who assume a position of theological authority in accusing Christians of being 'inconsistent'. There are theological hairs to be split, but Tim is aiming at cutting of the split ends... see? Tim is aiming at ending the accusers' hypocrisy in an instant, until they become as informed as all of you and have the credibility to engage an informed debate. :)

In whole-hearted agreement with Ian's comment above I would add my objection to Keller's notion "that the apostles understood the Old Testament moral law to still be binding on us". He cites Romans 13:8ff as somehow making this "clear". Reading a little further in Romans he would encounter a passage in 14:5-6 that could never have been written while the Fourth Commandment was still in force. Attempting to maintain this commandment as stipulated in Ex. 20 even via the "day changed - principle retained" formula still fails the scrutiny of Rom. 14:5-6 (and Col. 2:16-17). Furthermore, changing the "day" involves changing far more than a jot or a tittle in the law, "moral" or otherwise, which is precluded in Christ's own words in Mt. 5:18. If changing the priesthood required a new "law" (Heb. 7:12), then changing the "day" does also. And in the case of the Fourth Commandment we are not dealing with something that can so nicely be cast aside as "ceremonial" as some attempt to do in vain.

There are few people in the evangelical world that I respect more than Tim; however, on this issue, I believe his answer here doesn't really work. I can't get into the details, but the gist is, there are inconsistencies that go well beyond the ones he lists in this blog, and the particular hermeneutic he assumes here is incapable of dealing adequately with them. I think Keller and many evangelicals would do well to read William J. Webb's redemptive hermeneutic. He's received some criticism for his conclusions and his approach is not prefect, but it is significantly better than most of what I've read from the evangelical world. I'm a longstanding conservative evangelical, and I found many of Webb's ideas far more helpful in dealing with the inconsistencies of Scripture while maintaining the authority of the Bible.

Btw, I'm not here for a debate, but simply to point to a resource that might help this blog's readership. Blessings.

@Tom,
Thanks for your response.
In Romans 11, Paul talks about how there were natural branches, and the rest of us who aren't originally Jewish are ingrafted branches. By us becoming ingrafted branches, do we not become part of Israel? i.e. God's chosen people? If we're part of His holy people, then is the law for us just as much as it is for them?

My intent here is really not to start a controversial discussion, and if this is best discussed elsewhere, please email me at pat.kayongo (at) gmail.com.

As much as I appreciate this effort to unite both Testaments, I must admit I was disappointed that Keller carted out the "moral law/ceremonial law" distinction which is erroneous and unhelpful at best.

The Old Testament in no place makes a distinction between moral and ceremonial law. Indeed it seems all law is a moral issue. The moral issue is the holiness of God's people (Lev 11:44). What I see when I read the law is a strong language of separation, distinction and order. It reminds me actually of the creation account in Gen 1.

So in all things, God's people are given laws by which to demonstrate the holiness and character of the God who saved them.

It is my conviction that this purpose of the law codes of the OT is bound up in Christ, as adherence to him, the living, breathing Law as a disciple then becomes the criterion of holiness. With this reading we allow the full law to be equally moral and we account for what changes when Jesus came.

So in reading the law it might be more fruitful to discern what God was doing to the society and culture of Israel: What was he saying about family? About business? In this way the OT law remains a powerful voice for the Church without having to make it into a legal code OR conjuring up some fanciful 'ceremonial law' interpretation. An interpretation which would not have been possible when the temple fell during the Exile. So it's not as though NT believers are the first to wrestle with questions of the applicability of the law in a radically different context.

Right on!

This is a fine example of why the bible isn't worth the paper it's written on (that is a slight exaggeration). Look at all the church folks who consider themselves knowledgeable about this book and yet they can't do much more than accuse each other of incorrect interpretation. Once again... Reading the bible (and what believers say about it) is the very best evidence for it's lack of divinity ever....

Pastor Keller remains one of finest voices of rational, Biblical-solid Christianity, and his post is excellent.

I Erred, it is Acts 15, the council at Jerusalem that was written to show us Gentile believers the way of worship today in Christ.

We don't follow the ceremonial law, because as stated, the church is not Israel. Israel was established as a unique people, and nation, whereas, Christians are called out to a spiritual relationship with Christ, and being part of the church (local and universal).
Acts 17. was written to show us Gentile believers we are not Israel, and are to worship following the Apostles doctrine, as proscribed in the epistles. We also don't keep the Sabbath day, as it is a "sign" between God and the nation Israel, but Tim rightly points out the moral law has not been done away with, because those injunctions deal with "individual" behavior, and Christ in us by the Holy Spirit enables us to live that life pleasing to God.

In terms of consistency of christians in how we handle the bible, it'd be good to hear how theistic evolutionists reconcile the doctrine of original sin without there being a literal Adam as the first human.

Good summary, for Christians. Jews don't stone homosexuals and disobedient children anymore. I wonder why.

...further, the whole moral/ceremonial law is obviously reading something into the text that was not there. OK, yes, you can make up some rule that is not contradicted by the text (but I can refute that in this case, by the way), but that does not mean it is right.

Please stop trying to divide god's church! Please! This type of post is simply destructive to the church.

The article says:

There are only two possibilities. If Christ is God, then this way of reading the Bible makes sense. The other possibility is that you reject Christianity's basic thesis---you don't believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God---and then the Bible is no sure guide for you about much of anything.

When are you going to get out from the dark ages of there only being two choices, and the two choices you give being so incredibly wrong? This is an insult to most Christians.

There are many ways of reading the bible that make sense if Jesus is god. I for one certainly believe that Jesus is god and think that there is much more going on than what you say.

And even if you don't believe Jesus is god then this sort of reasoning is again quite ignorant since many can find quite good wisdom and advice in the bible.

The problem in Christianity is this type of outrageous certainty and condemnation for others. Only two things you can think. Really?

I understand that the distinction among moral, ceremonial, and civil law has been around for some time. But how does that make it a better answer? Once we begin applying our standards to decide whether a law is moral (i.e. still binding), aren't we picking and choosing? The man-made distinction could be interpreted as a post hoc rationalization (even if a longstanding one) for adhering to the laws we find most appealing.

For those confused by the moral, ceremonial, civil distinction, I think it may be helpful to recognize that this isn't some distinction Tim Keller made up in his office. This distinction has been around since the early church.
Also, it seems that many are confused about the use of the Law. Calvin (and many other theologians after him) have helpfully discussed three uses of the law (not to be confused with the three types Tim mentioned). The law wasn't simply a list of rules that were fulfilled in Christ and then done away with. Rather, they show us that we are sinners who can't keep the law (use #1); they then point us to Christ who kept the law (use #2); and (this is the big one for the present discussion) they show us how to live in a Christ-like way.

How do we decide whether a law is moral, civil, or ceremonial? Dr. Kessler states that "[t]he moral law outlines God's own character---his integrity, love, and faithfulness." Unfortunately, most people take laws they think are still in force, and from that, conclude that they are also a timeless reflection of God's character.

Let's take the example of homosexuality. Dr. Kessler seems to think that the OT prohibition on homosexuality is a moral law, but he fails to say why. Can anyone explain to me why that prohibition outlines God's integrity, love, and faithfulness?

Hey Mac, I'm glad you said that. Just because there's similarities in the covenants, does not mean one IS still in effect. God made the covenant with Jews. He made a NEW covenant with followers of Christ. "Thou shalt not murder." I seem to recall Jesus saying something about hating my brother being sin, let alone murdering him. The Old Covenant is not a very good guide for aChristian, because when we hate our brother, we have sinned. Murder is WAY out there in the outfield, by the time I murder someone, I had been sinning for a long time. Theres a lot of sins that aren't listed in the Old Covenant, doesn't make them not sin. We were to always love God and love others. That's been the same forever past and will be forever future. If we love God and our neighbor, we won't murder, we won't covet, we won't commit adultery. Those things are symptoms of sin, they are external actions that come about by sin in us.

I appreciate his effort just not some of his reasoning. I would love to see how he reconciles the death to apparently the whole law in Romans 7. I find the moral/cerimonial distinction quite unhelpful. Could it be that he is describing t...he law of Christ from Gal. 5&6? or could it be that fulfillment of the righteous requirements of the Law "in us" could also mean that (not the judicial acquittal) the righteous actions that would follow from our obligation to love and work out our holiness (Rom 8:4)? We do fulfill as obedient believers but not perfectly (Rom. 7).

Reformed theology makes little room for rewards. Is it enough to say that eternal life is through belief in Jesus and that the subsequent actions by thus believers, i.e., the homosexual offenders in 1 Cor. 6, is referring to their actions subsequent to salvation? There is something there that is merited, this inheritance. There is no need to break down into the moral, ceremonial distinction. Justification varies from sanctification here. We do not threatened our basic message of all is paid...even for the homosexual. What is at stake is fellowship and rewards. You get in trouble with the basic message trying to carry over the Mosaic Law that shows categories or carries on (Calvin may have done this but Paul does not).

Great words, Pastor Tim! I wish I could get every non-believer to read this. Unfortunately, most of the atheists who accuse me of cherry-picking from the Bible are more interested in their own rhetoric and hurling insults rather than legitimately understanding what the Bible truly says.

Thanks so much for sharing this. This has been a great help to me as I have struggled with these questions for years.

Keith,

How many times have you been wrong in your life? Probably a lot more times than you can remember. Does your post mean that you have to "quit making pronouncements of fact" like the ones in your post? And would you consider yourself inconsistent?

Saying that Christians are not always consistent with each other is not the same as proving that Christianity defined by what Scripture teaches is inconsistent.

I'm not sure sure that dividing the law into kinds of laws (ceremonial, civil, and moral) is going to help us understand how the law functions today. Who gets to decided which law is which? What if the Old Testament law reflected the way God's people were to relate to both God and others in the specific context of ancient Israel, a specific ethnic community in a specific geographical context. When the OT commands Israel to put a parapet around their roofs (civil law), God isn't saying that parapets are particularly holy. Rather, this is a practical implications of loving one's neighbor. Today most of us don't entertain on our roofs but if we did God would have us make it safe. No change in the real meaning of the law. Of course the way some OT laws continue today look very different but we don't simply toss certain ones and keep others because of what category we decide they should be under. We don't sacrifice lambs because Christ was our once-for-all lamb. We keep this OT law though by acknowledging our sin and trusting in God's provision, which was the reality behind sacrificing the lamb in the OT.

"What Paul says that the natural branches were broken off, the wild branches grafted in and also the natural-but-broken-off branches grafted in."

Actually, what Paul explicitly says is that SOME (not all) of the natural branches were broken off. He also implicitly says that some (not all) wild branches are grafted in and that some (not all) of the natural-but-broken-off may be grafted in at some future point.

There are four types of branches mentioned:
1. Natural branches
2. Some but not all natural branches are broken off
3. Some but not all wild branches are grafted in
4. Some but not all of the natural-but-broken-off branches may be grafted back in

Hi.
Great post,
Just one question: I understand that now through Jesus, the certain laws have been repealed such as the sacrificial laws because Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice, and we're all counted clean because of the cross. But why are the ceremonial laws repealed? The feasts and festivals that is.
Many of these were a shadow of what Jesus was to do, and now that we're aware what Jesus has done, shouldn't we continue in this with this greater understanding?

Following the law (ceremonial too) will not make us righteous in any way, because this comes only through grace. Despite that, they were still commands given to God's people, of who we are now a part of. My understanding is that we follow not to be counted as righteous, but to be obedient.

This argument won't ever work; no matter what your particular belief happens to be, or how confident you are of your exegesis, a body of Christians at some time carefully thought about the issue, prayerfully read the Bible, and then disagreed with you. Just agree Christianity is inconsistent and move on.

As an easy demonstration, consider that Martin Luther rejected the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation on theological grounds. If that's insufficient, the last numbers I've seen say there are tens of thousands of separate Christian denominations. Inconsistent much?

When Christians defend a specific exegesis as if they know what the Bible really says, all they demonstrate is they don't know Christian history: after you're wrong the first few thousand times, it's time to quit making pronouncements of fact.

[...] sense of the unfolding of Scripture? Why are tattoos wrong in the Old Testament but not in the New? Tim Keller grapples with the unfolding of the story of the [...]

Without jumping in to the discussion, I simply want to point out an error in your reading of Paul that, in my experience, leads to interpretive error.

You say, "Paul talks about how there were natural branches, and the rest of us who aren't originally Jewish are ingrafted branches." And that is not quite right.

What Paul says that the natural branches were broken off, the wild branches grafted in and also the natural-but-broken-off branches grafted in.

Two points:

(1) I disagree with Dr. Keller's assertion that those who point out potential inconsistencies in scripture lack "common sense." This subject matter is controversial, even among believers (as evidenced by the comments). More importantly, passive aggressive disparagement of our ideological rivals does not help us win souls.

(2) How do we determine which old testament passages state "moral" law and which set forth "ceremonial" law? Once we begin categorizing laws based on our own understanding, aren't we engaging in the type of picking and choosing of which we're accused? (The questions in point 2 are information-seeking questions as opposed to rhetorical. I would like to hear the insights of others.)

David - the ten commandments apply only in asmuch as they are still in Christ's law. It just so happens that most of them are. I don't follow the 10 (well, 9) commandments because they were in the Old Covenant, though, but because they are in the New Covenant.

There's a big difference between that and saying that the OT law still applies. That makes it sound like *parts* of the Old Covenant are still in effect... which seems very different from the entire New Testament writer's position :)

[...] Dr. Tim Keller helps better equip Christians as to how to answer this question in his post, “Making Sense of Scriptures’s ‘Inconsistency.’” [...]

[...] 2.     If you’ve had to tackle the issue of inconsistencies between the Old and New Testaments, Tim Keller gives great insight here. [...]

[...] Making sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’ by Tim Keller [...]

Depending on who you ask, Peter’s vision in Acts 10 does not resolve the issue of the dietary laws. :-) Three times the voice in the vision replies, “Stop treating as unclean what God has made clean” (Acts 10:15). This clearly is the message. But did God revoke the dietary instructions with this statement? The surrounding context is a significant revelation from God about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. In my opinion, it is best to take the vision as supporting this theme rather than one’s diet.

In comparison, Joseph dreamt about his brothers’ sheaves of wheat bowing down to his own, but the message wasn’t about agriculture and harvesting. It was about God’s plan to save Joseph’s family and Joseph’s future position in Egypt. In the same way, Peter’s vision is likely not about food. When God replies, “Stop treating as unclean what God has made clean,” we can look at the Torah to determine what God has made clean and what he has not made clean, including food.

The man-made traditions stipulated that Gentiles and their houses are unclean. Peter confirms this taboo when entering Cornelius’ home (Acts 10:28). To our benefit, we do not need to interpret Peter’s vision since Peter interprets it for us (Acts 10:28, 34–35; cf. 17–20). The vision wasn’t given to call pigs and lobster clean and good to eat—this does not preclude other arguments that abolish part or all of the Torah—but not to “call any person” unclean. The Torah never says that Gentiles are unclean and God took issue with that view.

Jer, you mentioned help for those working through the issue of the book of Hebrews and its relevance for regulating Torah observance for New Testament believers. I'm currently working through that issue, and while I may not come to all your conclusions in this brief post, I'd like to know what resources have helped you in your study, for I find your points to be a little more reasoned-out than Tim Keller's above. I appreciate Keller a lot! but the thing about Jesus "ignoring... laws" doesn't seem well-stated. Feel free to email me at pastorjoe[at]beijingbaptistchurch[dot]org
thanks.

I agree that the vision had wider implications than strictly dietary laws.

And yet, in 1 Corinthians 8:1-10, Paul brings up a similar dilemma in regards to eating food that was sacrificed to idols. Although the issue is slightly different, the spiritual concept he zeroes in on is the relationship between us as believers, God Himself, and those whom we are in contact with outside of our communities. He specifically uses the phrase "... food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." as an illustration of the most important reason for having restrictions on ourselves. I would imagine this statement by him was seen as controversial at the time, especially with the "circumcision group".

[SEGUE!]

The circumcision issue is a direct correlation to this topic. What was seen as an indicator of holiness in the Israelites, was made unnecessary in the work of Christ. Our lives are themselves now the indicators of holiness and the things we do we do because we are forgiven, not in order to be made holy and forgiven.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but I don't think it eliminated the "You pick and choose" dilemma. All this article tells me is that between Old to New Testament, Christians got to pick and choose what is considered "worship" and what is considered "the way we live" and base their moral standards on those choices.

[...] [i] For more helpful information on the question of the Old Testament authority in the life of a Christian please read Tim Keller’s helpful thoughts. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/09/making-sense-of-scriptures-inconsistency/ [...]