[color=#0000FF]Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.[/color] (NIV) Before we get into this, this will be lengthy. It may even be a lengthy series of lengthy posts. Ye have been warned. :) Keep the Law. God says so. See? Right here. "Keep my decrees." And yet people (Jews, Christians, nonbelievers, agnostics, etc.) find ways to argue that God didn't really mean "keep my decrees" when He said as much. Which decrees? We have a general statement followed by three particular statements. "When a general statement is followed by a particular statement [or statements] only what is specified applies." This is a rule of Biblical interpretation by Rabbi Ishmael, a 2d century rabbi who was martyred for teaching Torah during the Roman occupation of Israel. [i]Unless[/i], for the sake of internal consistency and common sense, it doesn't make sense to limit the general principle to the specifics. Were this the only instance in Torah were God said "keep my decrees" and it was followed by specifications, we might be able to argue that only the specifics were implied in "decrees." But throughout Torah, and even later in this very chapter, we see that God says to keep all His decrees (laws, statutes, commandments, ordinances). Exodus 15:26; 20:6. Lev 19:37. Deut 4:2, 20. "Keep my decrees" is a reminder that following God's commandments makes us holy. This chapter starts with "be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy." We then have a list of commandments instructing us precisely how to be holy. [i]Oh, but Leviticus was for the Levites, for the priests[/i]. Who does God enjoin Moses to give these commands to? Lev 19:2. "[color=#0000FF]Speak to the entire assembly of Israel[/color]." Who? The entire assembly of Israel. Or we could even turn to the very beginning of the book of Leviticus. Chapter 1, verses 1 and 2. [color=#0000FF]The Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting. He said, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them[/color]...." To whom? The Israelites. Is a distinction made between Priests, Levites and Israelites? Not at all. Also, notice the word "called" in verse 1. The Hebrew for "called" is k'ra, from which we get the Hebrew name for this book, Vayikra (And he [The Lord] called). Leviticus is our calling to be holy. It's a calling to holiness. [i]Leviticus is for the Israelites, for the Jews[/i]. Leviticus is for all who accept it as part of God's Holy Word. And those who claim sonship from Abraham and heirs to the Promise and being grafted onto the vine of Israel are they not Israel? Has the claim not been made and supported by references to Galatians, et al, that the True Israelites are those who believe in Jesus Christ? Has God's promises and covenants with Israel changed? I submit they have not. When God said "keep my decrees" and this applied to the Israelites at Sinai, would the same still not apply today? [color=#0000FF]I am making this covenant, with its oath, not only with you who are standing here with us today in the presence of the LORD our God but also with those who are not here today.[/color] Deut 29:14-15 Keep my decrees. Which ones? All of them. Including the three listed immediately following. [i]Why do you lay a burden on the people that neither you nor your fathers have been able to keep? We should make it easy, not hard for people to join.[/i] You are not called to complete the task, neither are you free to desist from it. (Rabbi Tarphon) The law calls us to a standard of perfection. While none of us ever make it, that is no reason not to try. "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for?" We do not discard the Law by reason of our inability to keep it perfectly. We uphold the Law. We hold it up as the standard by which we guide our lives. If people want to join us, well and good. We will not, however, lower the standard to make it easier for people to join. Else it becomes a very slippery slope. God doesn't change. What He requires doesn't change. [i]Why do you enjoin following all the Law when you yourself don't keep all of it? [/i] This is a red herring. It's an attempt to delegitamize an argument by attacking the character of the one asserting a position. If a person advocating a position doesn't live up to what he says, then he's a hypocrite. He's not credible. Therefore his argument is not valid. Were perfection the standard when it comes to arguing about keeping the law, there would be none who could say tattoos are against the law; homosexuality is an abomination; murder, theft, false witness, and coveting are illegal. For in the same law where you argue against tattoos, you yourself have gone about as a gossip. The same law that says do not murder also says leave your gleanings for the poor. If one who breaks one part is guilty of all, wherein can anyone say which laws are to be follwed? For there are none perfect, not even one.