Hi, Soyeong, hope this day finds you well. I brought my laptop to work, but I don’t have internet access; so I’m experimenting with using word to type out my replies, hoping it won’t cause any formatting problems. Sorry in advance if it causes any glitches. Let me know if it does.
Please explain how the way to act in accordance with God's holiness can change while God maintains a holiness that is eternal and unchanging. God can certainly reveal an aspect of how to act in accordance with His holiness that He had not previously revealed, but will never reveal an aspect of His holiness that is contrary to what He has previously revealed. It doesn't make any sense to interpret God as flip flopping back and forth about whether it is an abomination to eat unclean animals, but rather it has always been an abomination.
What does holiness mean? Holiness is being set apart for/dedicated to the Lord’s use. When the word holiness is applied to God, it refers to His separateness, otherness, Him being high above and distinct from His creation. This includes His perfect morality.
When looking at the Law of Moses, I believe that many of the laws were given as a way to command Israel to not do the things that the surrounding nations were doing. Holiness, in these instances, was found in obedience to God’s commands as they relate to being separate from the religious/civil practices of those nations. Therefore, we get commands about what not to wear, what not to eat, and such. Most of those foreign religious/civil practices have gone the way of the Dodo, so those laws are “obsolete”. God’s morality has never changed, thus the Law’s stance on idolatry, sexual morality, love of God and neighbor, sobriety, and such ARE reiterated in the New Covenant. This is how I see it. The Law of Moses is a unit, though, so it’s not like we keep
part of the Law… we do not keep the Law of Moses at all, we are to follow the commandments of God given to us in the New Covenant. Hope this helps.
In
Genesis 7:2, Noah was given instructions about what to do with clean and unclean animals without being told how to tell the difference, and in 8:20, he knew to offer a clean animal, so he must have already been giving instructions in that regard, which means that he already knew which animals were and were not permissible to eat. In
Genesis 6:21, Noah was told to eat the same food as the other animals while on the Ark for obvious reasons, so
Genesis 9 was the removal of that condition, not granting anything brand new.
Actually, eating of meat at all was a new thing. God gave Adam and his descendants only plant life to eat (Genesis 1:29, Genesis 3:18). Giving them the freedom to eat meat was a change in the way man would obey God under the Noahic Covenant. Even if your reasoning above is sound, which I am not conceding, it is clear that God’s commands do get changed from covenant to covenant. God does not change, how man is to obey God does change. For us, holiness is being obedient to and set apart for the revealed will of God. Thus, under the Law of Moses, holiness was found in being obedient to the revealed will of God found in that Law. Under the New Covenant, holiness is being obedient to the revealed will of God under that covenant.
In
1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (
Leviticus 11:44-45), so under the New Covenant we are still prohibited from eating unclean animals and the eternal way to act in accordance with God's eternal holiness has not changed.
Again, I see many of the laws as relating to being separate from the religious/civil practices of the people in the region, and these practices have largely disappeared, so the laws on these subjects are obsolete. The Law of Moses as a whole still stands as our tutor to bring us to Christ, as Paul says (Galatians 3:23-25), and it is profitable for us to know the Law, as Paul also states (2 timothy 3:16-17). Our relation to God (righteousness, holiness), however, is based entirely on the New Covenant. Otherwise, why would Paul say this:
Galatians 5:2-3 NASB Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. (3) And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
Circumcision is commanded by the Law, no way around that as far as I can see.
And Paul also says this:
Galatians 3:10-14 NASB For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS
WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." (11) Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." (12) However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." (13) Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"— (14) in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
The bolded part clearly shows that the Law here referred to is the Torah, not the traditions.
God bless you, Soyeong;
Michael