Argument

Ritual Purity Laws Objection Defeater

Intro

"The Bible says don't eat shellfish, don't mix fabrics, don't trim your beard, don't get tattoos, but you're wearing a poly-cotton shirt at Red Lobster, so why do you still cite Leviticus on anything else?" President Bartlet did a version of it on The West Wing. Stephen Fry repeats it on talk shows. Internet memes recycle it weekly.

The objection assumes the Old Testament Law is one undifferentiated pile of rules. It is not, and it has not been treated that way by Christians for 1800 years. The standard Christian reading sorts the Law into three categories. Moral commands (do not murder, love your neighbor) are permanent. Civil-judicial commands governed ancient Israel as a nation; they expire when that nation ends. Ceremonial commands (food rules, purity rituals, the temple system) pointed forward to Christ; the New Testament says they are fulfilled and lifted (Mark 7:19, Acts 10, Hebrews 7 through 10).

This is not a Christian invention to dodge inconvenient verses. Jesus Himself "declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:19). Peter's vision in Acts 10 was the explicit lifting of the dietary code. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 decided non-Jewish Christians do not have to keep kosher. Hebrews argues at length that the entire temple-and-sacrifice system was a shadow whose substance is Christ.

The food and fabric rules also were not random tribal taboos. Anthropologist Mary Douglas, Jewish biblical scholar Jacob Milgrom, and evangelical Old Testament scholar Gordon Wenham all show they functioned as a coherent symbolic pedagogy of holiness, a daily-life curriculum teaching Israel "set apart" before the deeper moral substance was unveiled in Christ.

So when a Christian cites Leviticus 18 on sexual ethics but ignores Leviticus 11 on shellfish, the move is not opportunistic; it is the standard reading the New Testament itself models. Leviticus 18's sexual-ethics commands belong to the moral category the apostles explicitly retained (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10); shellfish belongs to the ceremonial category the apostles explicitly lifted.

Quick reply in conversation: "Christians have read the Old Testament in three categories since the apostles did it. The food rules are lifted; the moral commands aren't. Jesus is the one who lifted them."

In full

Debate-prep defeater for the West Wing / Stephen Fry / meme-cycle polemic that the Bible's ritual-purity laws (pork / shellfish / mixed-fabric / beard-trimming / tattoos / etc.) prove the OT to be primitive-tribal-taboo rather than divine-wisdom; and that modern Christians are inconsistent for ignoring most of these laws. Written for narration off-the-page during live debate; built around (a) a 5-step equivocation diagnosis on "the laws of Leviticus" treating them as undifferentiated category vs the three-fold-law distinction (moral / civil / ceremonial; Aquinas ST I-II qq. 99-105 + WCF 19), (b) a second equivocation on "stupid" diagnosing it as 21st-c. retroactive imposition on coherent ANE-symbolic-pedagogical-holiness function, and (c) explicit canonical NT abrogation of the ceremonial portion (Acts 10 + 15 + Mk 7:19 + Heb 7-10).

Argument structure

Master objections to the whole argument

MO1, "The three-fold distinction is not in the text, it's a Christian theologian's invention"

Substantively false. The distinction is exegetically grounded in NT texts: Jesus's "Thus He declared all foods clean" (Mk 7:19, Mark's editorial parenthesis) explicitly distinguishes ceremonial from moral; Acts 10:9-16's vision + Acts 15:19-29's apostolic-council decision + Heb 7-10's extended argument ALL operate the distinction; Pauline corpus (Rom 14:14; Gal 3:23-25 + 4:9-11; Col 2:14-17; Eph 2:14-16) consistently distinguishes ceremonial from moral. The patristic-medieval theologians (Justin / Irenaeus / Augustine / Aquinas) systematized what was already operating in the apostolic texts. The "Christian invention" charge has the historical direction backwards.

MO2, "But Jesus said 'not the smallest letter of the Law shall pass' (Mt 5:18)"

Mt 5:17-19 affirms the fulfillment of the Law, not its perpetual ritual-applicability. The same Sermon on the Mount + same Gospel of Matthew + same Jesus "declares all foods clean" (Mk 7:19) and supersedes the Sabbath-observance rules (Mt 12:1-14) and the divorce-law (Mt 19:8-9 "because of the hardness of your heart") and the corban-tradition (Mt 15:1-9). Jesus's own ministry models the moral-ceremonial distinction. The Sermon is affirming the moral-law's permanence, not the ceremonial-law's perpetual-binding.

MO3, "Christians cite Leviticus when convenient (homosexuality verses) and ignore when inconvenient, that's selective"

The homosexuality verses (Lev 18:22 + 20:13) are not "ritual-purity" statutes, they are part of the moral-ethical Holiness Code, sandwiched in the Lev 18-20 section that contains incest-prohibitions (Lev 18:6-18), child-sacrifice prohibition (Lev 18:21), bestiality prohibition (Lev 18:23), oppress-the-laborer prohibition (Lev 19:13), love-your-neighbor (Lev 19:18), love-the-foreigner (Lev 19:34), all of which the Christian tradition has consistently treated as morally binding while abrogating the ceremonial-purity material. The selectivity charge requires the moral-ceremonial distinction to be incoherent; it isn't. The category-assignment is principled, not opportunistic. (Reaffirmed in NT: 1 Cor 6:9-10; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10, Pauline corpus explicitly retains the Lev 18-20 sexual-ethics core in church-age moral teaching, while abrogating dietary + ceremonial portions.)

MO4, "The ANE-pedagogical-symbolic recovery is just sophisticated Christian apologetics"

Mary Douglas (Purity and Danger 1966), Jacob Milgrom (Leviticus AB 1991-2001), and Gordon Wenham (NICOT 1979) are not Christian apologists, Douglas was an anthropologist working in social-anthropology methodology; Milgrom was an Orthodox Jewish biblical scholar; Wenham is a critical-scholar evangelical. The recovery is broadly cross-tradition academic consensus, not Christian-special-pleading. The "sophisticated apologetics" charge is unfalsifiable and ignores the actual scholarly methodology.

P1, Objection requires Mosaic Law as undifferentiated category

Affirmative case

1. The West Wing / Stephen Fry / meme-cycle rhetoric requires the assumption that every Mosaic statute operates with identical authority and applicability. "Christians ignore most of Leviticus while citing some of it" only works if the church has no principled categorization.
2. Without the assumption, the objection collapses to the trivially-true observation that "Christians distinguish ceremonial from moral law", which is not an objection but a description of the standard hermeneutic.
3. The Sorkin-monologue's rhetorical effect depends on listing peculiar-sounding statutes (mixed-fabric, beard-trimming, daughter-selling) alongside contemporary-controversial statutes (homosexuality) as if they were the same category. The rhetorical force fails if the categories are distinguished.

Anticipated objections

1. "Mosaic Law IS one thing, it was given as a single Sinai covenant."
2. "The single-category reading is the textually obvious one; multi-category is post-hoc theological imposition."

Rebuttals

1. The Sinai covenant is one covenant, comprising multiple categories of stipulations. Compare any modern legal system: a single national constitution contains constitutional-fundamental law + criminal law + civil law + administrative regulation, all distinguishable in scope and applicability. The single-covenant origin is consistent with internal categorization.
2. The categorization is exegetically grounded in NT texts (P2 + P3 below), it isn't post-hoc imposition. Mark 7:19 is editorial commentary on Jesus's own teaching, dating to the Gospel-tradition's original layer.

P2, Three-fold-law distinction has 1,800 years of Christian theological-hermeneutic

Affirmative case

1. Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 11-12, 18-23, 40-46 (c. AD 155), earliest extended patristic treatment of OT-law-categorization; distinguishes moral-eternal from ceremonial-pedagogical-typological.
2. Irenaeus Adv. Haer. IV.13-16, the law as paidagōgos; ceremonial-fulfillment in Christ.
3. Augustine Contra Faustum 6 + 22, anti-Manichaean defense of the OT; explicit moral / sacramental / juridical distinction.
4. Aquinas ST I-II qq. 99-105, the canonical scholastic-Catholic statement: q.99 a.4 explicitly distinguishes moralia / caeremonialia / iudicialia; q.103 a.3 (ceremonial law abolished by Christ); q.104 (judicial-civil law not directly binding but general equity informs reflection).
5. Calvin Inst. 4.20.14-15, Reformed magisterial statement; Westminster Confession 19 (1646), canonical Reformed three-fold-distinction codification; Belgic Confession Art. 25; Lutheran Formula of Concord Art. VI.

Anticipated objections

1. "Patristic + scholastic theology is post-hoc theological framework, not in the original text."
2. "Even granting the distinction, the boundaries between moral / civil / ceremonial are not always clear, which makes the hermeneutic indeterminate."

Rebuttals

1. The distinction is operating in the apostolic-NT text itself (Mk 7:19; Acts 10 + 15; Pauline corpus; Hebrews), patristic-medieval theology systematized what was already in the apostolic-NT layer (P3 below). Calling it "post-hoc theological framework" reverses the historical direction.
2. Some boundary-cases are debated (Sabbath observance; tithing application; civil-law-general-equity). But boundary-disputes about edge-cases don't invalidate the core distinction. Compare any complex legal system: paradigm cases of constitutional-vs-criminal-vs-civil law are clear; some boundary-cases are debated. The hermeneutic functions despite boundary-cases.

P3, Ceremonial law explicitly abrogated in the NT

Affirmative case

1. Mk 7:14-19 + Mt 15:10-20, Jesus: "there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him"; Mark's editorial parenthesis: "Thus He declared all foods clean." Direct abrogation of dietary-purity by Jesus's teaching.
2. Acts 10:9-16, 28, Peter's vision: "what God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy"; v. 28: "I should not call any man unholy or unclean." Abrogation applied to Gentile-mission context.
3. Acts 15:19-29, Jerusalem Council: Gentile believers not under ceremonial law (minimal four-clause directives, idol-meat, blood, strangled-animals, porneia, theological-symbolic minimum, not full kashrut).
4. Pauline corpus: Rom 14:14 ("nothing is unclean in itself"); Gal 3:23-25 (law as paidagōgos until Christ); Gal 4:9-11 + Col 2:14-17 (release from "festival or new moon or Sabbath"); Eph 2:14-16 (Christ abolished "the Law of commandments contained in ordinances").
5. Hebrews 7-10: ceremonial law (priesthood + sacrifice + tabernacle) as skia ("shadow") of heavenly reality, fulfilled + superseded by Christ's once-for-all priesthood + sacrifice.

Anticipated objections

1. "Acts 10 + 15 are about Gentile-only; Jewish Christians remained under the law."
2. "Jesus says 'not the smallest letter of the Law shall pass' (Mt 5:18), that contradicts ceremonial abrogation."

Rebuttals

1. Acts 15:10 ("a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear") and 15:11 ("we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are") apply the abrogation to Jewish believers as well. Paul's "to the Jews I became as a Jew" (1 Cor 9:20) is voluntary-cultural-accommodation, not law-binding-on-conscience. Hebrews 7-10 was written to Jewish-Christian audiences making the ceremonial-abrogation case explicitly to them.
2. See MO2. Mt 5:17-19 affirms the law's fulfillment, not perpetual ritual-applicability. The same Jesus who said it explicitly declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19) and supersedes specific Mosaic statutes (Mt 12:1-14 Sabbath; Mt 15 corban; Mt 19:8-9 divorce). The Sermon affirms the moral-law-permanence, not ceremonial-law-perpetuity.

P4, Ritual-purity laws have coherent ANE-pedagogical-symbolic function

Affirmative case

1. Mary Douglas Purity and Danger (1966) ch. 3, the Levitical purity-system is a coherent worldview-classification scheme; animals categorized by conformity to creation-order paradigms (cloven-hoof + cud-chewing; fins + scales); paradigm-violators (pig, shellfish) are unclean. The rules teach Israel to see the world in YHWH-ordered categories.
2. Jacob Milgrom Leviticus AB (3 vols., 1991-2001), moral pedagogy through ritual practice: daily food-choices as sites of conscious YHWH-allegiance.
3. Gordon Wenham NICOT (1979) + John Walton ANE Thought and the OT (2006), laws as boundary-markers separating Israel from Canaanite religious-cultural practice (meals to the dead; blood-consumption; mixed-cattle divination).
4. Pedagogical purpose, laws train Israel for priestly-people-among-the-nations (Ex 19:6); ritual-distinction-practice forms the worldview Israel was to embody.
5. Subordinate health-protection rationale (pork-trichinosis; shellfish-toxin pre-refrigeration; mildew-hazards Lev 13-14) is real but not primary.

Anticipated objections

1. "ANE comparative scholarship is post-hoc rationalization."
2. "If the laws are pedagogical, why not just teach the lessons directly without the ritual?"
3. "Other ANE cultures had the same purity-systems, that suggests the laws are cultural-borrowing, not divine-revelation."

Rebuttals

1. Mary Douglas was an anthropologist, not a Christian apologist; her Purity and Danger (1966) framework was developed in social-anthropology research on multiple cultures, then applied to Leviticus. Milgrom was an Orthodox Jewish biblical scholar working in critical-philological methodology. The recovery is academic-cross-tradition, not apologetic-special-pleading.
2. The Bible itself answers this in Hebrews 5:11-14 + Galatians 3-4 + Colossians 2: ritual-pedagogy is appropriate for a particular redemptive-historical stage (childhood / paidagōgos-phase) before maturity in Christ. Direct moral-instruction (without ritual-formation) presupposes the moral-conceptual maturity that the formation-period was itself producing. The pedagogy isn't suboptimal; it's stage-appropriate.
3. ANE-purity-system parallels are real (cf. John Walton's framework). The biblical laws often modify common ANE patterns toward holiness-monotheism: the dietary code excludes pig (a major animal in Canaanite cult); the sacrificial system excludes child-sacrifice (which Canaanite cult included); the menstrual-impurity code is less severe than parallel ANE codes (which often required permanent banishment or death). The polemical-engagement reading (Genesis 1 as polemic against ANE creation-myths per Walton; Levitical food-code as polemic against Canaanite cult-meals) is the canonical-evangelical-apologetic engagement; cultural-borrowing is a misreading of the polemical-reframing function.

P5, Moral-ethical core of Leviticus is permanently binding

Affirmative case

1. Lev 19:18, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself", Jesus cites as the second great commandment (Mt 22:39 + Mk 12:31 + Lk 10:27); permanently binding.
2. Lev 19:34, extended love-the-foreigner (Pauline retention: Eph 2:14-16; Gal 3:28).
3. Lev 19:13 (no oppressing laborer); 19:32 (honor elderly); 19:35-36 (just weights); 18:6-18 (incest); 18:21 (no child-sacrifice); 18:22 + 20:13 (homosexuality); 18:23 (no bestiality), all moral-ethical statutes the church has consistently held as permanently binding (NT confirmation: 1 Cor 6:9-10 + Rom 1:26-27 + 1 Tim 1:10 explicitly retain the Lev 18 sexual-ethics core).
4. The Holiness Code (Lev 17-26) interleaves ceremonial + moral material; the Christian tradition reads the moral as binding + ceremonial as fulfilled-in-Christ. The interleaving is the original code's structure, not a problem for the hermeneutic.

Anticipated objections

1. "If you keep some Lev 18-20 verses (sexual ethics) you should keep all (mixed-fabric, etc.)."
2. "How do you know which is moral vs ceremonial?"

Rebuttals

1. See MO3. The distinction is principled. Lev 18:22 + 20:13 sit in the moral-ethical core (alongside incest / child-sacrifice / oppression / love-of-neighbor) explicitly retained in NT moral teaching (1 Cor 6:9-10 + Rom 1:26-27 + 1 Tim 1:10). Lev 19:19 sits in the ceremonial-purity-cluster explicitly abrogated by Acts 10 + 15 + Heb 7-10.
2. Criteria (Aquinas ST I-II q.99 a.4 + q.100): moral = reflects God's character + creation order + NT-reaffirmed; ceremonial = symbolic-pedagogical-typological pointing to Christ + NT-fulfilled-or-abrogated; civil = Israel-specific theocratic application + general-equity informs reflection. Boundary cases exist; core distinctions are textually + patristically clear.

Christian satisfaction

Only the Christian framework offers (a) principled three-fold distinction, (b) explicit NT ceremonial-abrogation grounded in Christological fulfillment (Heb 7-10), (c) NT-reaffirmation of the moral-ethical core. Marcionite alternatives (drop OT) lose the moral core; single-undifferentiated alternatives generate the West Wing incoherence.

Live-cite kit

Scripture

• Mark 7:14-19, Jesus's editorial parenthesis: "Thus He declared all foods clean." (Direct abrogation of dietary-purity by Jesus Himself; force-commit early.)
• Acts 10:9-16, 28, Peter's vision: "what God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy"; v. 28: "God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean" (Apostolic-vision-mediated abrogation; pairs perfectly with Mk 7.)
• Hebrews 7-10, extended theological case for ceremonial-law fulfillment-in-Christ: priesthood + sacrifice + tabernacle as skia ("shadow") of heavenly reality.
• Lev 19:18, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Jesus's second-great-commandment citation; deploy when moral-ethical core is challenged.)

Scholarly

• Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II qq. 99-105, canonical scholastic statement of three-fold-law distinction; q.99 a.4 explicit moralia / caeremonialia / iudicialia categorization.
• Westminster Confession 19 (1646), canonical Reformed codification of the three-fold-law distinction.
• Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (1966), load-bearing ANE-anthropological recovery of purity-system worldview-pedagogy; not Christian apologetics.
• Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus AB (3 vols., 1991-2001), magisterial 2,800-page modern commentary; Orthodox-Jewish-scholar; not Christian apologetics.
• Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? (2011) chs. 8-9, canonical-evangelical engagement of the polemic.

Aphorisms

• Aquinas (ST I-II q.99 a.4): "The Law contains three kinds of precepts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial."
• Calvin (Inst. 4.20.14-15): "the moral law is the perpetual rule of righteousness; the ceremonial and judicial laws were peculiar to the Jewish nation, and are abrogated."
• Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 2): "the Creator's laws are not absolutely abrogated by Christ, but distinguished by Him into what was permanent moral truth and what was provisional ritual."

Tactical notes

Order of deployment:

1. Open with the equivocation diagnosis. "When you cite Leviticus, are you treating the ceremonial-purity laws and the moral laws as the same category? Because Christianity has had a principled distinction for 2,000 years, moral / civil / ceremonial, that explicitly retains the moral core (Lev 19:18 love your neighbor, Jesus's second great commandment) while recognizing the ceremonial portion as fulfilled in Christ (Heb 7-10)."
2. Drop Mark 7:19 + Acts 10 immediately. The ceremonial-abrogation is in the canonical text itself, by Jesus and Peter and the Jerusalem Council. The "selective Christian" charge collapses.
3. Force-commit on Lev 19:18. Will the objector grant that "love your neighbor as yourself" is in Leviticus? (yes) Will they grant that Jesus cites it as the second great commandment? (yes) Then the moral-ethical core of Leviticus is what Jesus Himself reaffirmed, the "all-stupid-laws" reading flattens out a code that contains the bedrock of cross-cultural moral universalism.
4. Hand off to Aquinas + Calvin + Westminster. The three-fold-distinction is older than the New Atheist objection by ~1,800 years. The mockery is unaware of the actual hermeneutic; the hermeneutic is older than the mockery and was systematized within the patristic tradition.
5. Drop Douglas + Milgrom on ANE pedagogical function. Mary Douglas (anthropologist), Jacob Milgrom (Orthodox Jewish biblical scholar), the laws have coherent function within their context; the "stupid" reading is retroactive 21st-c. imposition without engagement of the actual scholarship.
6. Close with the meta-defeater. The cross-cultural-moral-universalism the objector deploys to judge ANE laws is itself a Christian-tradition inheritance (Holland Dominion 2019). Standing on Christianity to attack one of its texts.

Deflection patterns to anticipate:

• "You're just making up categories to escape the difficulty" → "Aquinas wrote this in the 13th century; Calvin in the 16th; Westminster in 1646. The categorization is older than the New Atheist objection by 1,800 years and is exegetically grounded in Mk 7:19 + Acts 10 + 15 + Heb 7-10."
• "How do you decide what's ceremonial vs moral?" → "The criteria are exegetical: moral = reaffirmed in NT, reflects God's character + creation order; ceremonial = symbolic-pedagogical pointing to Christ, fulfilled or abrogated in NT. Some boundary cases are debated; the core distinction is textually and patristically clear."
• "You're cherry-picking the verses you want and ignoring the rest" → "I'm operating with a principled categorization the church has had for 2,000 years. You're operating with a single-undifferentiated-law reading the church has never held. Whose hermeneutic is selective?"

Force-commit moves:

• "Will you grant that Jesus said 'thus He declared all foods clean' (Mark 7:19)?" (yes, they have to) "Will you grant that Peter's Acts 10 vision applies the same principle?" (yes) "Then the ceremonial-abrogation is in the canonical text itself, the church has held this for 2,000 years, and the 'selective Christians' charge dissolves."

What NOT to defend:

• Don't defend the ritual-purity laws as 21st-c. life-applications. Concede they are abrogated in the church-age per Acts 10 + Heb 7-10.
• Don't defend the West Wing monologue's specific list as a bad-faith-attack. Concede the rhetorical force; address the underlying confusion (Sorkin himself is operating with the Sense-A undifferentiated-category misreading, possibly without knowing the three-fold distinction exists).
• Don't defend "the laws as health-codes" as the primary rationale. Concede health-protection is subordinate; primary function is symbolic-pedagogical-holiness-formation per Douglas + Milgrom.
• Don't defend specific Sabbath observance / tithing / festal-calendar applications as church-age binding. These are precisely the ceremonial-portion the NT abrogates.

Pastoral pivot: For someone genuinely puzzled by Leviticus (not polemicizing): the puzzlement is biblical, Acts 15 documents the early church wrestling with this exact question. The three-fold categorization is a navigational tool, not a denial of difficulty. Christopher Wright OT Ethics for the People of God (2004) + Aquinas ST I-II qq. 99-105 + Milgrom commentary are the canonical resources for walking with the inquirer through the 2,000-year hermeneutic.

Connection to Scripture

• Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus on Law-fulfillment (not perpetuation in original ritual form)
• Matthew 15:1-20 / Mark 7:1-23, Jesus on the moral-vs-ceremonial distinction; "Thus He declared all foods clean" (Mk 7:19)
• Matthew 22:34-40, Jesus's two-great-commandments summary citing Deut 6:5 + Lev 19:18
• Acts 10:9-16, 28, Peter's vision; abrogation of dietary purity-laws
• Acts 15:1-29, Jerusalem Council; apostolic decision on Gentile believers
• Romans 14:14, 17, Pauline ceremonial-abrogation
• Galatians 3:23-25, the Law as paidagōgos
• Galatians 4:9-11; Colossians 2:14-17, release from elemental things + festival-calendar
• Ephesians 2:14-16, Christ abolished "the dividing wall... the Law of commandments contained in ordinances"
• Hebrews 7-10, extended ceremonial-fulfillment-in-Christ argument
• Leviticus 19:18, 34, moral-ethical core (Jesus's second great commandment + love-the-foreigner)

Patristic and scholarly note

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 11-12 + Irenaeus Adv. Haer. IV.13-16 + Augustine Contra Faustum 6 + 22 anchor the patristic engagement; Aquinas ST I-II qq. 99-105 is the load-bearing scholastic statement (q.99 a.4 explicit moral / ceremonial / judicial categorization); Calvin Inst. 4.20.14-15 is the Reformation-magisterial codification; Westminster Confession 19 (1646) is the canonical Reformed statement; modern: Mary Douglas Purity and Danger (1966), Jacob Milgrom Leviticus AB (3 vols., 1991-2001), Gordon Wenham NICOT (1979), John Walton ANE Thought and the OT (2006), Christopher Wright OT Ethics for the People of God (2004), Tremper Longman III How to Read Leviticus (2012), Paul Copan Is God a Moral Monster? (2011) chs. 8-9.

See also

• Ritual Purity Laws Objection, companion concept hub
• Christians Not Under Mosaic Law, load-bearing companion syllogism on three-fold-law-distinction
• Mosaic Capital Punishment, sister evilbible-defeater (the moral + civil portions)
• Animal Sacrifice Objection, sister evilbible-defeater (the ceremonial-sacrificial portion)
• Canaanite Conquest and Herem, sister evilbible-defeater
• OT vs NT God Objection, companion canonical-unity defeater
• OT Atrocities Descriptive vs Prescriptive Objection, companion hermeneutic
• Biblical Sexual Ethics Objection, companion sister-defeater on Lev 18 + 20 sexual-ethics
• Atheist Moral Realism Objection, meta-defeater
• Mosaic Law, concept hub on Mosaic Law as such
• Levitical Priesthood, concept hub on Levitical institutional setting