Table of Contents
One of the theological issues underlying many Holiness standards is in how we ought to interpret commands from the Old Testament. There is a variety of opinions within Holiness, and many of the more respected preachers would agree that we can’t just pluck a verse from Deuteronomy and say it applies to today. However, many Holiness people do defend a modern Christian practice with sole support from the Old Testament. But is this claim justified?
Let’s examine what the Bible has to say. Let me be clear; I believe the Old Testament is the Word of God. It is divinely inspired and helps us understand many things about God’s unchanging character. The psalms model praise, the proverbs model wisdom, and the prophets demonstrate God’s omniscience. 1 Corinthians 10:11 teaches that the stories in the Old Testament serve as examples which Christians can learn from. In that case, Paul was using Old Testament stories to show that idolatry and sexual sin displease God.
Unhelpful ways to distinguish Old Testament laws
The Old Testament also contains several kinds of law, although the exact categorizations are matters of opinion and not stated in Scripture. Generally, people divide God’s commands in the Old Testament into ceremonial, civil, and moral laws. Ceremonial law, such as animal sacrifice, existed before the law of Moses, though the law of Moses added many details. Civil law, such as capital punishment for certain offenses, also predates the law of Moses, but the Mosaic law lists many commands in detail. Moral laws, such as not murdering, were prescribed before and after Moses as well.
The problem lies in how we pick apart the categories. Most of things prescribed by Holiness people as “moral laws,” such as not having tattoos of any kind, are understood by many other Christians to be ceremonial laws. There is no tell-tale marker in the Old Testament to tell us which laws are of which type. I have heard some people say that the word “abomination” denotes that a law is moral.
While that is a tidy explanation, a simple word search of “abomination” will show that one of the most common associations is with dietary law. If we use this rule as our guide, then Christians can not eat shellfish (Lev. 11:12), remarry their own wife that they have divorced (Deut. 24:4), or eat bacon (Isaiah 66:17).
Furthermore, there are two separate Hebrew root words translated “abomination” in the KJV and the KJV sometimes also translates them “abhor” or “detest.” If the word “abomination” is supposed to be our cue for moral law, then we would expect one consistent root word in Hebrew and English – not two root words with three main translations. That’s not a cue, that’s just confusing.
The moral laws are also not grouped separately from the other types of laws. Laws condemning incest, bestiality, adultery, and homosexuality are lumped in with the command not to have sexual relations with a woman within seven days of her period (Lev. 18:19, Lev. 20:18, Lev. 12:2, Ez. 22:10). Despite how many times that last command appears (and the fact that it listed as an abomination), I have never once heard it preached against.
Laws condemning bribes and oppression of the poor are lumped in with the command to not plant crops in the seventh year (Ex. 23). Even the ten commandments lump in not making any molten or graven image with everything else, and that would include the Statue of Liberty. Not to mention the debate about whether we are obligated to keep the Sabbath, and on which day, and to what extent. For the people to whom these laws were written, none of this was confusing. That’s because to the Jews, all of the Mosaic law was moral. God told them to do these things and to disobey would be an abomination. For them it was easy. For us, I believe the Bible teaches that it is also easy.
How Christians should understand the Old Testament
Why? Because Hebrews chapter 8 makes it clear that the old covenant is obsolete. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: … 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. -Hebrews 8:7-8, 13
Hebrews says that the old covenant is “old” and “ready to vanish away.” The word “old” is the same word used in Luke 12:33, to refer to what happens to earthly money bags – they become obsolete and not good for their original purpose. Other translations translate this word “obsolete,” which is in keeping with use in Luke and other ancient texts. The law is the same way, it is good for something, but not good for its original purpose of prescribing God’s commandments for our lives.
Paul reiterates this idea in Romans 7: 4-6 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
In context, Paul uses the analogy of marriage, a covenantal relationship, to say that there are circumstances by which one can be released from a covenant. In the case of marriage, you are released from your vow if your spouse dies – you are then free to marry another. You are no longer bound to be faithful to your dead spouse. Paul says that since we have died with Christ, we are dead to the law and the law is dead to us. Now we are married to Christ, and the New Covenant in his blood. We’re not in a double marriage with two husbands and two covenants to keep. Describing our relationship to the law as “dead” seems about as clear a way as possible to communicate that we’re no longer bound by it. Paul then goes on to describe what purpose the law served in exposing sin. That exposition is in the past tense, emphasizing that that purpose is already complete.
But what about the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18? “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Doesn’t this mean we have to follow the Old Testament? Be careful with that logic. Jesus doesn’t distinguish the different types of law here, he just says that nothing will pass from the law until it is fulfilled. This predicts a future fulfillment, in his death and resurrection.
That fulfillment changed the nature of how we relate to God. The covenant or “contract” that we have with God is different than the one that God had with Abraham and Moses. God had a few versions of the covenant as he revealed it from Adam through Moses, but essentially, the covenant was “have faith in God and follow these rules.” The rules were myriad and served many different purposes. Don’t trim your beard, don’t eat pork, don’t commit adultery, don’t have tattoos, don’t pick up sticks on Saturday. These rules weren’t arbitrary, but they were highly specific to a time and culture – they were tailored to wean Israelite off of pagan practices.
God made a lot of promises to them in return – that was his side of the deal. He told them that if they followed him that he would “bless their land” among many other things. Jesus didn’t tear up that contract – that’s what the Pharisees accused him of. He said he would fulfill it. He made the sacrifice that all of the other sacrifices merely pointed towards. He provided the righteousness that all of the rules hinted at. However, once he fulfilled the contract, it did become null and void. We are no longer obligated to stone rebellious children. We are no longer obligated not to pick up sticks on Saturday. Once a business contract is complete it is not right to say it is “abolished” – but it is right to call it “obsolete.”
The Bible calls the old covenant “ready to vanish” in Hebrews 8:1-13 and “dead” in Romans 7:4-6. It’s like if you have a mortgage debt and you say, “Soon this house will be mine.” I say, “You are trying to abolish your mortgage and default on your debt!” And then you say, “No – I’m not going to abolish my mortgage, I’m going to fulfill the terms and pay it off in full.” Once you pay it off, you no longer owe the bank $700 a month. Nor do you owe them a part of the $700 every month. The contract wasn’t abolished – it was fulfilled, and then it becomes obsolete. So, something can be fulfilled, not abolished, and yet be obsolete. It’s not just playing games with words – there is a difference between abolishing a contract and fulfilling it so that it becomes obsolete.
Where does this leave us? Doesn’t that mean that we can murder now, if none of the old covenant is in effect? No. But maybe not for the reason that you have previously understood. It’s like if you move from New York to Texas. When you move to Texas, you will no longer be subject to New York law. If New York has a law against theft, you are not bound by that law. If you steal in Texas, it will still be illegal, but it will be illegal by Texas law and no one would reference the New York law in court.
All possible ways to understand the Old Testament
Paul said that to follow the Old Testament law was tantamount to rejecting Christ. But how were the Galatians supposed to know that? After all, Jesus never preached that circumcision was unnecessary, he only mentioned it positively. But yet, Paul clearly thought that the Galatians had gone off the rails – “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?” Paul clearly thought that the Galatians shouldn’t be consulting Mosaic law for church policy. If nothing was said by divine revelation through Jesus or the apostles to reaffirm that a law was a moral one, then it was not to be taught as a requirement. The positive proof of that is found in Acts 15. 22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; … 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: -Acts 15:22-24
The apostles here are inferring that if they don’t give a commandment reiterating an Old Testament practice, then that practice is not to be preached. Essentially, the apostles are expressing their agreement with method C. The Old Testament is not to be consulted for rules. If a rule still applies, the apostles will explicitly specify that the rule still applies. As it turns out, reading the Old Testament doesn’t have to be confusing. Read the New Testament to find out how you ought to live. Read the Old Testament to learn more about the unchanging nature of God. But don’t keep paying on a mortgage that Jesus paid off on the cross.
Thanks so much for this I needed to read it. I am coming out of legalism via Hebrew Roots and some Holiness teaching and have been a bit confused lately
I think your understanding of the context is lacking and you assume a lot when it comes to people who believe the law is still applicable today. The author of Hebrews is writing that the law is ready to vanish, not that it has, and also you didn’t look at the original language for the word fulfil, you just took your understanding of that word and applied it to the text. Words have usages, not meanings. Furthermore that dialogue of abolish and fulfil were Hebrew idioms. When he says he came to fulfil the law, it means he came to live it the way it’s supposed to be lived, the correct way because the religious leaders created so many man made laws that they went so far from Torah. Yeshua (Jesus) cake to show the proper way to live it. Also what scripture did they have in the 1 st century when Yeshua and the disciples were walking the earth? They had the OT. That was their Bible. We today like to separate the 2 as if that old stuff was for them and the new is for us future people. God does not change. Also in Acts, you left out verse 21 which is of such importance when using this passage to reject obedience. Even in Galatians you missed the context. People in Galatia were being told they HAD to undergo circumcision in order to be saved… That’s Legalism. They were making them become proselytes and teaching them that before you could be saved you had to do it. When Yeshua spoke the 2 greatest commandments, the people would have realized that the way to live God is to obey him and to love others is defined in the Torah. This whole idea of “unless it’s repeated in the NT” is not biblical. That’s a man made doctrine.
God does not change, but his revelation to mankind has been successive. The “New Covenant” prophesied in Jeremiah was given by Jesus to his disciples and expounded upon in Hebrews by that same name. Same God, new covenant. When the covenant changes it is only logical that the terms and conditions change.
It’s a sound point that words have usages not meanings (I like that). I don’t even really disagree that the meaning of fulfill you propose is feasible. Yes, Jesus lived up to the law in a way that no one ever had, and never will again. But that’s my point. The law was a means to an end, like God’s covenant with Noah was a means to an end. We’ve reached the end. The end is grace through faith, that manifests itself in a life of righteousness foreshadowed in the Old Testament and unveiled in the New. We don’t build arks anymore, because that covenant was fulfilled. So was the covenant of animal sacrifice, special clothing, and circumcision. It’s not even a “bonus level” of righteousness. It’s a rejection of Christ’s sacrifice (Gal 5:2).
And though I’m willing to concede where I can see I am in error; I think my logic regarding the Galatians is sound.
A) Mosaic law commanded circumcision
B) Jesus never explicitly reverted this command, and was circumcised himself
C) A group of Galatians was preaching that circumcision was required (which is an accurate reading of Mosaic law)
D) Paul condemned them as legalistic fools
E) Ergo, Paul didn’t think we should default to following Mosaic commands
It sounds like you think the law is still in effect today, and we agree that the Galatians only had the Old Testament to read (and for the sake of argument, maybe they had also heard the teachings of Jesus), so where do you think they went wrong?
Are you saying we have to follow the mosaic law after being saved (including circumcision)? If so, I’d recommend you give Galatians another read.
We are taught to be lawless. We are taught not to regard his Torah. But without Torah, how will we know what sin is? We won’t, that’s the answer. In Romans 7, verse 7, which is the next verse left out in this article, it says exactly that. How would we know not to covet if the Torah didn’t tell us? We wouldn’t. I’m trying to learn about how my Father wants to be loved and honored. The devil will shut down the world on his calendar to celebrate pagan times, but stir up confusion around His feasts, His appointed times. My question to people who don’t believe in them is, “WHY do you believe in these pagan holidays when you cannot change the meaning behind them? It lacks real substance and significance. On Easter, for example, you’re worshipping the fertility goddess Ishtar, known in English as Easter. People can choose whichever system they would like, but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahuah! Serving Him means we should be willing to learn about His feasts. This is something even I haven’t done enough of…and I’m not saying that because I believe in works salvation, absolutely not! I am human and fall short like other humans do. I hope that one day He can make all things right…until He does, I know I’m going to get it wrong at some point. For instance, the devil has us in confusion about the times so much that I cannot ever say I’ve got the calendar right. But what I can say is that I am doing my best to worship Him in spirit and in truth. And though it may not always seem like it, I try to live by Micah 6:8…meaning to walk humbly, not to act like I know everything or have it all together, because I certainly do not.
Hi Tiffany,
Thanks for your thoughts here. I am in full agreement that the law came to reveal sin. But the covenants that God has had with his faithful ones have changed over time. Neither Adam, Noah, or Abraham followed most of the ceremonial requirements of the law or celebrated the feasts you mention – so they were never universal. I think the New Testament makes a pretty compelling case that Jesus gave us a new covenant through his blood, and fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant, as God fulfilled the prior covenants.
Logically, there are only three ways to understand the Old Testament as a believer – it’s fulfilled in full, but much is restated because God’s nature is unchanged (C). It’s fulfilled only by explicit exception (A). Or, it’s fulfilled wherever the reader feels like it is (B).
I think “B” is a biblically problematic opinion, despite it being the default evangelical position. I go with “C” and I argue that Paul does as well. It seems like you’re leaning towards “A.” Let me just warn you that you have a long way to go to live in compliance with it. There are 613 commandments, and very few have been specifically mentioned as fulfilled in the New Testament. You’re free from animal sacrifice and you can eat pork, but numerous laws regarding feasts, food, and dress would still apply. And let’s not forget that three of the feasts require you to go to Jerusalem, so if you’re not taking three trips a year there, I’d argue you’re not “really” observing the feasts.
You can see my article on “guilt by association” to unpack why I’m not the slightest bit concerned about pagan origins of the word “Easter” and I don’t believe God is either. Jesus used the word “Hades” to describe death/hell, despite the fact that this word is the name of the mythical Greek god of the underworld.
However, while there is much upon which reasonable people can disagree in this issue area, the Bible explicitly says in Romans 14:5-6 that you are not allowed to cast judgment on fellow believers for which days they honor as holy, as long as they are “fully convinced in their own mind” (which is why I agree that you are well within your Christian liberty to celebrate Jewish feasts). I know nothing of the pagan goddess Ishtar and I am no more worshipping her than you are worshipping Hades if you read the words of Jesus or if your calendar bears the names of Norse gods (Thursday = “Thor’s Day,” Friday = “Freya’s Day,” etc.).
But it’s worse than that. Evidence exists that Christians have been celebrating Easter and Christmas (albeit by different names over time) since the 2nd & 4th centuries. Your assertion also requires you to believe that approximately 99% of all of the Christians who ever lived (since there are many more by population in the later centuries) got this badly wrong. Whenever someone believes that 99%+ of all Christians from all time are wrong, they must choose between saying that God utterly lost control of the Church, or that none of these people are really Christians – which would mean that God utterly lost control of the Church. Either way, it is fundamentally a belief that God is really bad at running the Church, and we should probably look for new management.
I’m sure there is much on which we can agree, and I’m glad you don’t believe that we are saved by our works. But friend, I was born and raised down the path of legalism, and there’s nothing there but misery and isolation in every form it takes. It’s a trap. Stay clear.
P.S. Ancient Hebrew has no written vowels. We don’t know the actual vowels in the word YHVH, though we can make educated guesses. If someone has told you that a non-typical transliteration of YHVH like “Yahuah” is the real name of God, and that using that “real name” gets you spiritual bonus points, it means your sources are unreliable.