It goes without saying that there has been a lot of chatter lately about the applicability of the Old Testament for new covenant believers. For instance, you can check out my TGC article, “Why We Can’t Unhitch from the Old Testament,” a review of Andy Stanley’s latest book on this topic, Irresistible.
But, some people don’t have time for a lengthy article, and certainly not a book. If you (or someone you know) is looking for just a brief 3-minute summary of why the OT still matters, then here’s a video I did recently for Credo Magazine on this very question:
Bryant J Williams III says
Dear Mike,
It should be remembered that at the Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD, ALL the elders present including Peter, Paul, and James the Lord’s Brother agreed to this phrase in the letter to the Gentile Churches to abstain “from … ‘and from sexual immorality,’ …” (Acts 15:20).
The question then, is where does one obtain the information as to what is “sexual immorality.”? The only form of Scriptures that the early Church had was the Old Testament. The New Testament was not written at the time of the Council of Jerusalem. Thus, what is sexual immorality is governed by the legislation found in the Old Testament. The New Testament would also include that legislation also. That is also why Paul in Romans 1, I Corinthians 6, etc. have as their basis the Old Testament legislation as background.
Johannes says
Bryant, you assume 1) only written laws apply and 2) only Biblical laws apply.
But morality is not synonymous to law, and certainly not written law (such as found in scripture). Jews and other cultures put great stock in oral law, and in fact preferred it as superior to written law. The oral law has only been codified on paper since 200 CE.
The law may attempt to regulate the boundaries of morality, but it does not ensure standards that are also culturally and traditionally determined.
Bryant J Williams III says
Johannes,
I am not talking about the oral interpretation of the law nor the oral law that you mentioned in your second paragraph.
The Council of Jerusalem’s letter to the Gentile Churches in Acts 15:23, “Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia,” specifically state the following in 15:28-29,
“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
There are four requirements listed that the Gentiles believers were to abstain from,
1. What has been sacrificed to idols, (Pauline comments in I Corinthians 8-10).
2. From blood, i.e. eating meat with blood still in it (Leviticus 17:10, idolatrous rite; 11-16 also).
3. From what has been strangled, i.e. animals being strangled instead of head chopped off.
4. From sexual immorality, sexual sins from fornication, adultery, incest, homosexuality, etc.
Leviticus 18 specifically lists certain sexual sins that are not to be engaged in. Paul would list 10 classes of sins in I Corinthians 6:9-11; later, expand on those in Romans 1:18-32. But, it is the issue of sexual immorality that are listed in Acts 15 way before Paul begins writing of them that is mentioned. This was not a hard decision as to what is meant. The Old Testament was quite clear and that Apostles and Elders of the Council summarized the whole issue with a statement, “abstain from sexual immorality.” They did not need to legislate it.
Mike says
Johannes, are you saying there is a difference in content between oral and written law? If no, why was one preferred as superior? If yes, what are those differences? As far as I can see, when Jesus was in conflict with the Jewish leaders of his days about any topic he always referred to what was written. (“Have you not read…”).
Mike says
Johannes, are you saying there is a difference in content between oral and written law? If no, why was one preferred as superior? If yes, what are those differences? As far as I can see, when Jesus was in conflict with the Jewish leaders of his days about any topic he always referred to what was written. (“Have you not read…”).
Johannes says
Jewish tradition understood that Moses received both oral and written law from God (both comprising halakhah), with oral law representing a situational interpretation (midrash) of God’s will as expressed in Torah (which indeed itself reveals a progression and reinterpretation from Covenant Code, Deuteronomic Code, to Priestly Code.) Nothing bars oral law from being written, as it ended up being in the compilation of Mishnah.
According to prof Christine Hayes (Yale) rabbis would sometimes shy away from interpreting Torah in its strict, formal sense (“din haTorah”) in order to emphasise values like compassion, mercy, peace etc. This seems to have been one source of Jesus’ conflict with the scribes and Pharisees, with them insisting on certain strict interpretations (and not consistently). Jesus’ midrash provides precedent for the apostles at the Jerusalem Council in dealing with the gentile question. The apostolic decree (as conveyed by Paul) are oddly specific, seeming to address specific points of contention between the Jewish and gentile believers.
See how this played out in practice: of the four recommendations, 21st century gentiles have little trouble with the first three – to the point they almost seem redundant. The conversation has moved on, as implications of the Christian freedom took hold. The contemporary resistance against gender equality therefore seems anachronistic as it clearly threatens to rupture unity among Christians of similar piety, because of its “heavy yoke”.
Finally, Paul’s sin lists don’t simply hark back uncritically to Leviticus 18 but refer to activities that by their nature threaten peace, cohesion and order. As with other points of order, their roots may be in the Old Testament (as with any moral imperatives) but their fulfilment is to be sought in Christ.