This is part three in a series of articles on Christianity and the LGBTQ Movement. In case you missed them, part 1 introduced the topic at hand and explained the position I’m defending throughout this series. Part 2 looked at what the Old Testament says about marriage and sexuality. In this post, I want to address why Christians appear to pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament law are still relevant for today. 

Admittedly, most Christians have a difficult time answering why they condemn homosexuality (Lev. 20:13) but not eating shellfish (Lev. 11:10) or sexual relations while a woman is on her menstrual cycle (Lev. 18:19). And for obvious reasons, this seems hypocritical. But I believe we have good reasons for taking this interpretive approach, and it all starts with the concept of progressive revelation.

PROGRESSIVE REVELATION

Progressive revelation is exactly what it sounds like. God has revealed himself progressively over time and not all at once. And while the Bible is bound up together, it’s actually sixty-six books written over the course of fifteen hundred years by dozens of different authors. Moreover, the Bible is subdivided into two major sections — the Old and New Testaments. The word testament simply means covenant. That is to say, there is an old covenant and a new one. 

Jesus, of course, is the hinge by which we transition from the old to the new covenant. In the upper room, when partaking of the Last Supper, Jesus states, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk. 22:20). In short, through the work of Christ, a new covenant exists by which we are subservient. And as you read the Old Testament, you will see that it anticipates a future new covenant that would one day supersede the existing one (Jer. 31:31-34).

THE LAW HAS PASSED AWAY

The NT writers indicate that the OT is no longer binding. The author of Hebrews makes this clear when he writes, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13). The author of Hebrews is emphatic that the old covenant is obsolete. It’s no longer morally binding. New Testament scholar Tom Schreiner says it best: “The phrase ‘old covenant’ implies that the covenant enacted with Moses is no longer in force and that it has been replaced by the new covenant.”¹

Paul also indicates that we are no longer bound to the old covenant. He states in Romans 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law.” That is to say, once Christ came, the law — i.e., the old covenant — has been abrogated. Elsewhere he argues that “before faith came, we were held captive under the law . . . the law was our guardian until Christ came . . . But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (Gal. 3:23-25). In short, the law served its purpose. But now that Christ has come, no one is morally obligated to the old covenant. 

The great biblical scholar Douglas Moo contends, “The Mosaic law is basically confined to the old era that has come to its fulfillment in Christ. It is no longer, therefore, directly applicable to believers who live in the new era.”²

THROW OUT THE OLD TESTAMENT?

Now, some of you may be thinking that we can toss out the OT. But this would be a mistake. After all, Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” When Paul says “Scripture” he means the OT. In other words, the same Paul who said we are no longer under the law says that it’s still profitable. But how?

For starters, the OT tells us a great deal about the nature and character of God. It tells us about his creation and how he has acted in history. It tells us about how everything got so messed up. The Old Testament also tells us about God’s plan of redemption. And we also find moral examples, although most of them usually show us what not to do (1 Cor. 10:11).

Jesus shares this same attitude. In Matthew 5, he responds to his detractors by saying that he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In other words, his enemies were spreading the rumor that Jesus wanted to toss out the OT. But Jesus declared that this was not his intent. While it may have appeared on one level that he was abolishing it — e.g., doing away with the food laws (Mk. 7:19), violating cleanliness laws (Mt. 8:3), or not upholding the Sabbath (Lk. 6:2) — he came to fulfill it.

He is the goal of the law. The law points to him (Jn. 5:39) and finds its fulfillment in him. So, we need to hold these two truths in tension. On the one hand, it’s not as if the law has been abolished. After all, Jesus says in the next verse that not one iota or dot will pass from the law until all is accomplished (Mt. 5:18). I take this to mean that the OT is still God-inspired Scripture that is profitable for our instruction (2 Tim. 3:16). At the same time, Jesus fulfilled the old covenant and established a new one in its stead. 

WHY ACT LIKE SOME OLD TESTAMENT LAWS ARE STILL RELEVANT?

This brings us back to the question at hand. Why do Christians still affirm the laws against homosexuality (Lev. 18:20) but not the ones against shellfish (Lev. 11:10) or sexual relations while a woman is on her menstrual cycle (Lev. 18:19). Again, the answer goes back to the concept of progressive revelation. Christians don’t believe we are morally obligated to the OT. But it appears that we obey parts of it and not others, and there are two reasons for this.

NATURAL LAW

First, Christians uphold certain OT laws if those laws are in accordance with Natural Law. Natural Law refers to laws that are embedded within nature itself and are independent of human invention. For example, even if we never had a law code to tell us that murder is wrong, it would still be wrong to take someone’s life. The same is true for theft, child abuse, rape, and so much more. It’s interesting to note that great uniformity exists between law codes from ancient times till today. The explanation for this is that these laws are universally obvious to the human race, or as Paul said, written on the human heart (Rom. 2:14-15).

What about homosexuality? Does Natural Law tell us anything about it? I believe that it does in two ways. First, the female and male sexual organs are both necessary for procreation and the continuation of the human race. Second, the sexual organs for a male and female are obviously designed to complement one another. The vaginal cavity is self-lubricating, and sturdy enough to withstand penetration unlike the anal cavity which easily tears and leads to a plethora of health concerns. (For more on the health concerns, here’s a helpful article at WebMd). Without sounding too pantheistic, this is nature’s way of telling us that sexual activity ought to be between a man and a woman.

Lest you think that this is just some concept Christians drummed up, a whole slew of ancient philosophers acknowledged this reality. In fact, they frequently employed the phrase “against nature” when describing homosexual activity. Plato, for example, writes, “When male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be in accordance with nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female.” 

Or consider the first century Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus. He states, “But of all sexual relations those involving adultery are most unlawful, and no more tolerable are those involving males with males, because the daring and flagrant act is contrary to nature.”

As Christians, we believe Natural Law is universally binding because ultimately these laws are rooted in the very nature of God. And since God never changes, neither does Natural Law. This explains why there is a great deal of overlap between Natural Law and the OT. 

REPEATED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The second reason Christians obey certain OT laws is because those laws are repeated in the NT. As I said previously, Christians are obligated to obey the NT. Sometimes scholars refer to this as the law of Christ. This law includes the teachings of Jesus and his apostles and can be summarized as a Spirit-empowered love of God and others.

So, when the NT repeats certain laws from the OT, those laws are morally binding for a Christian. Murder, adultery, theft, lying, idolatry, and so much more is repeated again in the NT. The same goes for homosexuality. Consider Paul’s words side-by-side with Leviticus 20:13.

“If a man lies with a male (arsenos koiten) as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination” (Lev. 20:13)

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). 

Just about everyone agrees that Paul takes the Greek word (arsenokoitai) directly from Leviticus (arsenos koiten). In other words, the NT repeats the sexual ethic of the OT.

Certainly, there’s a great deal of overlap from OT to NT. After saying that he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, Jesus immediately says, “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches other to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:19). What does he mean by “these commandments”? Does he mean the Old Testament? If so, he disobeyed his own exhortation because he told people they could eat pork and shellfish (Mk. 7:19). 

A better interpretation is to take “these commandments” as the commandments he is about to give in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount. After all, he says “these” and not “those” indicating he is speaking about the laws in close proximity. For he goes on to say that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:20). The problem with the scribes and Pharisees was that their righteousness was all external. “These” commandments Jesus wanted people to obey — the ones he was about to give — focused on the human heart. And much of what Jesus goes on to say further expounds OT teaching.

WHAT LAWS AREN’T REPEATED?

Much of the OT isn’t repeated in the NT or part of Natural Law. For example, cleanliness law — e.g., touching blood, the sick, dead people, or eating unclean foods — are not repeated in the NT. In fact, Jesus specifically overturns these (Mk. 7:19). Closely connected to cleanliness laws are laws tied up in Jewish worship — e.g., animal sacrifices, special days, the temple, priestly system. These laws served as shadows which pointed to Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice for sins who now serves as our great High Priest. 

Additionally, separation law — e.g., sowing two seeds in one field, wearing clothing with two types of fabric, tattoos, weird haircuts — were also fulfilled in Christ. Those laws, which appear weird to our modern senses, symbolized that God wanted the people of Israel to be separate from the Canaanite communities surrounding them. In other words, God wanted them to be holy. In the NT, holiness isn’t wrapped up in clothing or hairstyles but in living like Jesus.

Finally, civil laws are not repeated in the NT. We must keep in mind that the old covenant was given to a geo-political state. It was their constitution so to speak. Therefore, it speaks of death penalties, cities of refuge, restitutions, taxes, welfare programs, the institution of slavery, and more. It goes without saying that Christianity is global and thus not tied to a political entity. Therefore, the civil laws aren’t repeated in the New Testament.

Additionally, none of these types of laws are embedded in Nature. And because they aren’t part of Natural Law or the NT, Christians are not bound to them.

A FINAL WORD

Martin Luther once wrote, “We will regard Moses as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver — unless he agrees with both the New Testament and the natural law.” This is precisely what I’ve argued for in this article. 

Christians, therefore, don’t insist that homosexuality is sinful because Moses says so. They believe it’s sinful because Natural Law and the NT say so. Think about it this way. As an American citizen, I am legally bound to the Constitution. But before we had a Constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation. If you read that document, you will see that there are aspects of it that we would still agree with today (e.g., property laws). And we still abide by those laws today but not because the Articles of Confederation says so. We’d obey them because the Constitution says so (and Natural Law!). 

In the same way, Christians appear to obey only certain aspects of the OT because those aspects are repeated in the New Testament or are part of Natural Law. Another way of saying it is: we obey the NT and Natural Law that happen to be included in the OT.