In the present church climate, there is a great deal of confusion about the nature of Old Testament law. One result of this is that people have been arguing that we don’t need to pay attention to Old Testament prohibitions, particularly those against homosexual acts (found in Lev 18:22; 20:13), since the Old Testament also supports slavery and the subjugation of women and other things which Christians generally ignore.[1]  This teaching is a contribution to explaining some reasons why we must pay attention to Old Testament prohibitions (not just those against homosexual acts).

I propose a way of understanding Old Testament law by distinguishing between endorsement and regulation.  If am basing this idea on a saying of Jesus.

‘Why then,’ they asked, ‘did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning’ (Matt 19:7-8).

According to Jesus, the passage regarding a certificate of divorce was given to regulate those whose hearts are hard. It was not that Moses gave this command in order to encourage divorce, but only as a means of regulating something which people frequently do.  This is not an endorsement of divorce, but a regulatory statement.

The law was given because people are sinners.  People will sin, they will engage in things like divorce and keeping slaves. “We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,” (1 Tim 1:9).  What this implies is that not everything mentioned in the law of Moses was put there as an endorsement of human behaviour.  Much of what is there was given because people have hard hearts.  Human actions therefore need to be regulated, since sinners will not simply stop sinning.

Let me provide some examples of this distinction between endorsement and regulation.  “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exod 21:23-25).  This could be read as an endorsement of violence towards those who hurt us, or it could be better read as a way of regulating how much violence can be done to a perpetrator.  If a person inflicts a wound on another, then justice demands that a there be equity, not unlimited revenge.  It is a command which regulates, not a command which endorses.  Similarly there are regulations about slavery in the Old Testament.  This does not imply that God endorses slavery.  However, given that slavery was going to take place anyway, it required some regulation so that slaves would be treated fairly.

Under the old covenant it was ineffective to give a command which demanded that people live in complete holiness and righteousness.  The law did not produce righteousness and holiness while the heart is still hard.  That is why there is a promise of a new covenant which would change the heart. “‘This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,’ declares the LORD. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.’” (Jer 31:33). “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Ezek 36:26).  The Holy Spirit is given to sanctify the heart under the new covenant.  Therefore, Paul can say, “whoever loves others has fulfilled the law … love is the fulfilment of the law” (Rom 13:8b, 10b) and “For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’” (Gal 5:14).  Only with the indwelling Spirit is it possible to obey this command (Rom 8:1-4).

Now with this understanding in place, we can hopefully understand why we must pay attention to Old Testament commands.  If commands are not always an endorsement of something, but rather a way of regulating something, then we cannot discount clear commands that begin “You shall not” simply based on the notion that the Old Testament mentions divorce and slavery.  If the Old Testament specifically forbids something by saying “You shall not” then we must pay careful attention to what it is forbidding.