Recently, while reading a book about how some conservative Christians interpret the Bible, I came across a bad argument that nonetheless raised a good question.

According to the author, who is a liberal evangelical, conservative Christians practice “selective literalism” when they read Old Testament laws.

For example, they consider Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 obligatory, but not Leviticus 11:10–12. The former passages prohibit same-sex intercourse, while the latter forbids eating “all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales.”

(The author cites other examples, but to keep things simple, I’ll focus on the passages just cited.)

“Insisting on reading two verses in Leviticus as eternal absolutes that serve as foundational principles for the faith while discarding most of the book exposes the hypocrisy of fundamentalism,” the author writes.

Bad Argument

The charge of hypocrisy seems unwarranted.

First, the New Testament also makes clear that same-sex intercourse is sin. According to Romans 1:26–27, homosexuality is driven by “shameful lusts” and contrary to “natural sexual relations.”

Elsewhere, “men who have sex with men” will not inherit God’s kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9), and “practicing homosexuality” violates “sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:10).

Though translated differently, both verses use the same Greek noun — arsenokoitēs, a portmanteau of arrēn (“male”) and koitē (“bed”). This word is unattested in ancient literature before Paul, who may have coined it.

Why would Paul use a novel term when Greek had several words for same-sex relationships? Both arrēn and koitē appear alongside one another in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. This suggests Paul intentionally chose language that alluded to those passages.

Second, the New Testament permits eating nonkosher food. “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean,” God told Peter (Acts 10:15). This referred to Gentiles and the food they ate (11:2–3).

Similarly, “All food is clean” according to Paul (Romans 14:20).

The first and second points imply a third: The author is wrong to charge others with hypocrisy, as if they were doing something unprecedented.

Prohibiting same-sex intercourse and permitting nonkosher food began in the New Testament and continues throughout church history. It reflects the ongoing belief and practice of confessional Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians today.

Consequently, the author’s charge of hypocrisy is against the Christian tradition across history and denominational differences, not just conservative evangelicals and Pentecostals.

Finally, I wonder whether the author realizes where the logic of this argument leads.

If prohibiting same-sex intercourse while permitting a shrimp boil is hypocritical, is it also hypocritical to forbid incest (Leviticus 18:6), polygamy (18:18), adultery (18:20), and bestiality (18:23)?

What about other Old Testament laws? If Christians are not obligated to keep kosher regulations, why are they obligated to love their neighbors (Leviticus 19:18) or foreigners (19:34)? After all, those laws appear in Leviticus too!

Good Question

Despite this bad argument, asking why Christians observe some Old Testament laws but not others is a good question.

We need a hermeneutic that is biblically grounded and consistently applied. This includes several elements.

Reverence. Christians should approach the Old Testament law with the right mindset and heart orientation.

Paul said, “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (Romans 7:12).

Some treat Old Testament law flippantly as a bunch of weird, outdated, foreign commandments contemporary people can ignore.

For Christians, all Scripture is God’s Word, reveals God’s plan, and shares God’s character. This calls for reverence.

Some treat Old Testament law flippantly as a bunch of weird, outdated, foreign commandments contemporary people can ignore.

Two covenants. The New Testament distinguished between the old covenant, which God made with Israel through Moses at Sinai, and the new covenant, which God offers all through Christ.

(The Bible divisions of Old and New Testaments reflect this distinction.)

Comparing Jesus to Old Testament priests, Hebrews 8:6 declares, “The ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.”

After citing Jeremiah 31:31–34 to explain why a new covenant was necessary, the author of Hebrews wrote, “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear” (8:13).

Laws stipulating prohibited and permitted behaviors are key features of ancient covenants.

If the new covenant is superior to the old, its laws are superior too. And if the old covenant has been abrogated by the new, so have its laws.

In a sense, no Old Testament law is binding on Christians because the old covenant isn’t.

Three types of law. This doesn’t mean Christians can do whatever they want. To understand why, consider the various types of law the old covenant contains. Historically, Protestant theologians categorized them as ceremonial, civil, and moral.

Ceremonial laws regulated the ways Israel worshipped God and included commandments regarding the tabernacle or temple, priests, sacrifices, and ritual cleanness, including a kosher diet. For example, Leviticus 1–7 identifies various offerings — burnt, grain, fellowship, sin, guilt — Israelites could bring the priest.

For Christians, these laws have been abrogated because of Jesus, a greater priest offering a greater sacrifice (Hebrews 9:11–14).

Civil laws regulated behaviors related to living as a civil community in the promised land of Israel. They include laws defining criminal behavior and detailing appropriate remedies. For example, Exodus 22:1–15 outlines appropriate remedies for theft and property disputes.

Since Christians are not citizens of ancient Israel, they are not necessarily obligated to obey these laws beyond what is universally fair or reasonable.

The third type of law is moral. It regulates behaviors that are inherently right or wrong and thus universal.

In philosophical terms, the moral law is the natural law. One doesn’t need a Bible to know this law or be held accountable to it. Paul said even those who do not know Scripture “show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness” (Romans 2:15).

The Ten Commandments contain premier examples of moral law. Citing the prohibitions against adultery, murder, theft, and covetousness in Romans 13:9–10, Paul wrote, “The commandments … are summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”

A loving Christian will keep the moral law.

New Testament as guide. Christian interpretation of Old Testament law acknowledges the New Testament as our authoritative guide.

Absent that guide, Christians tend to pick and choose what they think applies to them based on personal prejudices, contemporary trends, or political ideologies.

All things should be subject to the Word of God, not individual preference.

Good Works

Contrary to the bad argument I examined previously, it is neither selectively literal nor hypocritical for Christians to eat shrimp but preach against homosexuality. Arguing otherwise confuses ceremonial laws that have been abrogated with moral laws that have not.

However, it is both selective and hypocritical for Christians to pick and choose which moral laws they want to obey.

The Bible is neither conservative nor liberal. It prohibits sexual immorality and the taking of innocent life. It also mandates generosity to the poor and foreigners — the most vulnerable members of society.

In Ephesians 2:10, Paul wrote, “We are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Let’s get busy and do good works — all of them.

This article appears in the Winter 2026 issue of Influence magazine.