Sensitivity Is Needed When Utilizing the Old Testament

Since the early days of Christianity, when we no longer had apostles who could authoritatively answer questions, believers have debated exactly how to handle the Old Testament. With the exceptions of heretical groups like the Marcionites (whose beliefs about the OT have unfortunately resurfaced some in recent years), it was acknowledged that it was the word of God. 

However we as Christians are in this tension where certain parts seem to contradict what we believe as Christians. Of course, the skeptic or the liberal or so-called red-letter Christian would simply say that the Old Testament does indeed contradict the New Testament, as well as itself, but we aren't in a position where we can agree. This tension between Christianity and the Old Testament, the bulk of the very scriptures upon which Christianity is based, is nothing new.

This tension has become especially acute in recent years because of the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Although both the Old and New Testament ostensibly mention and condemn the practice of sexual relations between people of the same sex, the Old Testament passage of Leviticus 18:22 is often the primary passage brought up. This, however, leads to all sorts of rebuttals by those who defend homosexuality. They point out that Christians eat shellfish and pork, despite Leviticus 11. They point out Old Testament rules that no one seems to advocate today, like the death penalty for adultery (Leviticus 20:10) or for working on Saturdays (the actual Sabbath) (Exodus 31:14). They then call us hypocrites for using the Old Testament to condemn one action while not obeying the Old Testament in other places. Or in some circles, making no distinction between the Old and New Testament, they simply will argue that we are hypocrites for following some parts of the Bible but not others. And since it is all the word of God, both Old and New Testament, we do need to have an explanation for any of these seeming inconsistencies.

Seven Guidelines

To thoroughly give a good theology of the Old Testament in relationship to the New Testament would require much more than a blog post (and would be controversial). However, for the biblical Christian, I can think of some useful guidelines:

1. The Law, from the 10 commandments onward, was specifically for Israel under the Mosaic Covenant that God formed with them.

2. Jesus was under the Law, as the new covenant He brought could not take affect before His death (Hebrews 9:15-17).

3. Christians are not under the Mosaic Covenant (the fascination many in the west have with the 10 commandments notwithstanding). 

- A common interpretation of Hebrews 7-10 is to this effect. Similarly, Galatians 3:23-25 (as well as the greater context of the letter) demonstrate that the Law served a purpose, and we are not under it now that Christ has come. Moreover, on a more practical level, if we were still under the Law of Moses, we would be bound to follow all of its commandments (at least insofar as could be logically possible). But this would contradict the New Testament in places. For example, Paul commanded the Galatians not to be circumcised in Galatians 5:1-6. If we were not under a new covenant, how would that square with the command in Leviticus 12:2-3 (which was in fact parroting a rule given by God for His people that preceded Moses, in Genesis 17:4)?

4. Because we are under a new covenant, we cannot just read something a verse in the Old Testament that was part of the Mosaic Law and assume it applies directly to us today. 

- Simply quoting a command in the Old Testament will not do. (Ultimately, the same is true of the New Testament as well, but the New Testament does tend to be more directly applicable.)

5. However, this does not mean that everything in the Mosaic covenant no longer applies. 

- The fact that the many rules of the Old Testament were specifically for the Mosaic covenant does not mean that they were only for the Mosaic covenant. Many moral laws, for example, are affirmed after Jesus' death and resurrection in the New Testament as well, and so it is clear that the rules were not just for Israel (this would include things like commandments against stealing and murder). Conversely, some rules are said to specifically not apply now because of Jesus. This would include circumcision, as mentioned above, as well as animal sacrifices for sin in light of Hebrews 9-10.

6. We are left with many other rules that are not specifically mentioned in the New Testament one way or another, and we must therefore figure out what significance they have today, and in what contexts.

- A broad example of this would be the many rules that made up something of a legal code for the kingdom of Israel. After all, many acts were not only declared sinful, but were to be punished on earth by the assembly, with procedures and safeguards in place (such as the requirement that there be at least 2 witnesses). Did these rules apply only to the kingdom of Israel? To what extent should they apply to governments today, if at all? These are questions we must answer.

7. Whether or not a specific command applies today, and regardless of what context it does apply to, all of the scriptures are God-breathed. 

- Moses was not a false prophet, but the commands given Him were from God. The Law was not evil, but good (Romans 7:12-13), not to be abolished as something wrong, but fulfilled by Christ (Matthew 5:17-18). This means that even if we are not bound by a particular rule or law today, we nonetheless must accept that the rule was from God and was made for a just reason. Therefore, we cannot avoid tough apologetic questions about some of the more unsavory passages of the Old Testament by simply telling skeptics "that was the old covenant, it doesn't apply anymore."

Why then do most Bible-believing Christians eat shellfish and pork or not observe the biblical (Saturday) Sabbath like observant Jews still do? The answer pertains to points #3 and #4. Some disagree and sanctify the 7th day of the week or avoid the foods Israel was to consider unclean. They would do so in light of point #5. Both groups may also differ in whether or not these things fall under point #6 or whether certain, relevant New Testament passages apply to them directly. I never said that these guidelines did not leave a lot of room for disagreement.

With all that said, the fact that most do not advocate the death penalty for adultery does not let us off the hook in terms of #7. If we believe that the scriptures are authoritative, then we must acknowledge that it was not unjust of God, the creator of all life, to command the death of sinners (who already deserve death) as punishment for certain sins in a God-founded theocracy whose laws came down directly from God Himself.

One Last Thing

I don't want you to think that I think of the Old Testament as some burden that we just kind of have to deal with. On the contrary, it is the word of God. And when I read it, it does me all kinds of good spiritually. It is remarkable how much of God we get in the Old Testament. In some ways, one could argue He saturates the pages of the Hebrew scriptures even more than the New Testament. There is no shortage of connection to God in Genesis through Malachi. When I get insights from the Old Testament, I am moved. For example, I used to feel sorry for the high priest who every year had to enter the most holy place in the temple, and was prone to drop dead if he didn't do it right and upset that mean, angry deity who made him go in there. And then it occurred to me: for that high priest, it wouldn't have been a burden. It may have been a little scary, but it was also an enormous privilege. God's presence dwelled in that room in a way that it was not found anywhere else before Jesus came, and the high priest was the one person who got to be in it for those moments on Yom Kippur. You think of how wonderful it would have been, and then remember that we have a deep connection to God via the Holy Spirit, and that we will spend eternity in the most holy place, yet without the fear of death.

The Old Testament, aside from being necessary to make the New Testament and the gospel message logically coherent, also makes the gospel come alive.