Why Don’t Christians Follow All The Old Testament Laws?
Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries, September 16, 2025 (Donate)
The Alleged Problem
Have you ever heard the claim that Christians are walking contradictions because they don’t follow all the Old Testament laws (e.g., offering sin offerings, Leviticus 5:5-6 or eating bacon, Deuteronomy 14:8)? Consider the following verses and think about whether Christians obey these commands, and if they do not, why don’t they?
‘Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you. ‘Likewise, the shaphan [ed. note hyrax/coney], for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you. ‘You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.. (Leviticus 11:4-8, NAS)
"You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together. (Deuteronomy 22:9, NAS)
Many Christians eat bacon. Many Christians wear garments made of two or more materials but rarely is it woven cotton and wool. Most avoid this mixture for obvious reasons. Cotton and wool which have different thread sizes, different properties, like elasticity, shrinkage, and surface texture cause a lot of problems. It's atrocious to do it without causing unevenness or distortion to the fabric.
Christians also still avoid mating animals of two different kinds (Leviticus 19:19). This should also be for obvious reasons—for instance, chickens and cows are not the same kind, so stop wasting your time tying to make them breed.
Photo by Bodie Hodge
Nevertheless, unbelievers still criticize Christians and say they are inconsistent. Let's evaluate this situation of "law-change" from a big picture theological perspective.
The Solution
The answer is not as difficult as it may seem, and yet is overlooked by non-Christians, and even some Christians, who have not read or at least fail to understand some basic theology (perhaps just newer Christians and that is understandable). Did rules ever change for man at different times in the Bible? Of course they did. Let’s look at one example—diet:
- From the beginning man was vegetarian (Genesis 1:30). The Bible lists a number of covenants after this and usually there were some associated rule changes at this time.
- When there was a new covenant with Noah, man was allowed to eat clean and unclean meat (Genesis 9:3).
- With Moses, meat eating was even more strict, limiting them to eat only meat that was clean (e.g., Leviticus 11:47).
- In the new covenant in Christ’s blood, He purified all foods making them all clean (Mark 7:19). So now all foods, like rabbit, pork, and shrimp and permitted to be eaten (Romans 14:1-4).[1] We still eat a clean diet, but the list is expanded.
- And in heaven, we will be vegetarian again to complete the cycle (there will be no death in heaven [Revelation 21:4], so no meat will be available).[2]
Food permitted to be eaten
|
Edenic |
Vegetarian |
|
Noahic |
Vegetarian
foods, clean and unclean meats |
|
Mosaic |
Vegetarian
foods, clean meats |
|
New
Covenant in Christ |
Vegetarian
foods, clean meats but expanded |
|
Heaven |
Vegetarian |
For instance, Christians recognize from the Bible that when a new covenant came about, certain rules changed, were modified, or affirmed. Some of these covenants are the original Edenic/Adamic (Hosea 6:7),[3] Noahic, and the new one in Christ’s blood.
So God’s rules to man can change at various covenants (but God’s character has never changed). With regards to various laws, there are also some changes but it may not be as “cut and dried” as the example above regarding food.
Two Major Schools Of Thought (Today)
Now here is the tricky part: developing a theological basis from the Bible on the subject regarding law changes. Let’s look from a bird’s eye view at the change from the Mosaic to New Covenant. From a big picture, today, there are two popular theological schools of thought (with many variations). They are Dispensational and Covenant theology.[4]
As a significant point of note, Covenant theology was the prevailing view of churches historically since the New Testament until the AD 1830-1850s. Dispensationalism had not been invented yet. It came about in the 1830s by a lawyer named John Nelson Darby and he was instrumental in forming a denomination called the Plymouth Brethren (and later split from them to form the Exclusive Brethren church). Around World War I (early 1900s), dispensational theology started to explode.
These views have similarities and differences. They differ in the way they look at how the laws change. There is more to it than this, but we will get to that in a moment:
(1) Covenant Theology: rules
apply unless done away with or modified in the New Covenant. In other
words, each covenant is seen as part of a greater covenant that now has
modifications where the rules are still in effect
unless abrogated or modified by the New Testament by God.
Leading Covenant Theologian Greg Bahnsen stated:
“The methodological
point, then, is that we presume our obligation to obey any Old Testament
commandment unless the New Testament indicates otherwise. We must assume
continuity with the Old Testament rather than discontinuity. This is not to say
that there are no changes from Old to New Testament. Indeed, there are —
important ones. However, the word of God must be the standard which defines
precisely what those changes are for us; we cannot take it upon ourselves to
assume such changes or read them into the New Testament. God’s Word, His
direction to us, must be taken as continuing in its authority until God Himself
reveals otherwise. This is, in a sense, the heart of “covenant theology” over
against a dispensational understanding of the relation between Old and New
Testaments.” [5]
(2) Dispensational Theology: previous rules were for ancient nation of Israel and do not apply to the church so the laws in the Old Testament are therefore abolished for the church. Thus, only laws in the New Covenant (New Testament) apply. In other words, the New Dispensation (New Covenant) does away with previous Mosaic rules because those rules were given to a specific group of people, and entirely new rules need to be stated.
Leading Dispensationalist Charles Ryrie states:
“Now the Mosaic Law was done away in its entirety as a code. It has been replaced by the law of Christ. The law of Christ contains some new commands (1 Tim. 4:4), some old ones (Rom. 13:9), and some revised ones (Rom. 13:4, with reference to capital punishment). All of the laws of the Mosaic code have been abolished because the code has. Specific Mosaic commands which are part of the Christian code appear there not as a continuation of part of the Mosaic Law, or in order to be observed in some deeper sense but as specifically incorporated into that code, and as such they are binding on believers today. A particular law that was part of the Mosaic code is done away; that same law, if part of the law of Christ, is binding.” [6]
Both of these schools of thought affect the way Old Testament laws are viewed. Both sides agree on many laws because so much was reiterated, changed, or commented on in the New Testament. But some things went away such as the sacrificial stuff such as Leviticus 5:5–6, which Christ fulfilled. Both of these schools of thought answer why Christians do not adhere to all the Mosaic laws—particularly the sacrificial and methodological aspects of the Temple service, and so on.
There are Christians whose theologies do not fit into either of these camps or are variations of them. For example, within Dispensationalism there is (among others) Classic Dispensationalism, Revised Dispensational, Progressive Dispensationalism, and one theologian even used the term “Leaky” Dispensationalism.
On the other side of the coin, there is New Covenant theology which finds some middle ground between Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, but starts with a Covenant theology basis as opposed to Dispensational basis.
The reality is that in all of these variations, they mix the two predominant theologies together, but really there is no justification for this and it is arbitrary (i.e., pick and choose what you want whenever you want).
Of course, there are significant differences on certain points as well. This is where the debate heats up between theologies. For instances, Covenant and Dispensational theologies differ on things like tattoos, prost1tuting one’s daughter, and beast1ality. These are all seen as sinful in the Old Testament but not mentioned in the New.
So, they are still wrong in the Covenant theology realm but not sinful in Dispensational view—if one is consistent. This is one reason that some dispensationalists waffle on dispensationalism and move to New Covenant theology or leaky dispensationalism and the like. Because they know these things are wrong. So the historical view of Covenant theology should be favored for the one who is astute.
If you are interested in pursuing these theologies in more detail, then I suggest you contact your local pastor and elders and do further research to get into the finer details.
This is all said to teach the reader that Christians have a biblical basis for certain law changes (even in both camps) and can easily answer the claim that Christians are walking contradictions.
□
Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist
since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website.
He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker,
writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers
News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.
Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in
2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a
501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in
churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.
Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited, expanded, and updated; Republished
by permission.
[1] Some
still preferred to utilize diets that exclude meat temporarily even though it
was permitted in Scripture. For example, Daniel, who lived under the Mosaic
covenant, followed a vegetarian diet instead of eating the king’s sacrificial delicacies
to false gods while in captivity, and this was not a sin. Later we read that
Daniel ate meat. In the New Covenant, some who are weak eat only vegetables
(Romans 14:2). Further, this answers the verse mentioned previously in
Leviticus 11:4-8.
[2] Some may
argue that meat could still be eaten without death, e.g., lizard tails can be
removed and regrown without the death of an animal. If such could be designed
to have no pain in Heaven, this could theoretically allow meat to be eaten in a
perfect heavenly state. Though, would such a thing be necessary in a perfect
state? Likely not.
[3] Hosea
6:7 indicates there was a covenant with Adam and he broke it. God certainly
gave Adam and Eve instructions to be followed and warned Adam of the
consequences for disobedience.
[4] In rare
cases, some other Christians may hold to obscure views different from these
two, but to answer this alleged contradiction I am going to stick to the main
two theologies that Christians adhere to. So please forgive me if I have not
dived into one of the other theological positions.
[5] Greg L. Bahnsen,
By This Standard: The Authority of God’s
Law Today, Institute for Christian Economics, Tyler, TX, Second Printing,
1991, p. 3.
[6] Charles
C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, ChariotVictor
Publishing, Colorado Springs, CO, 1982, page 305.
