THE USE OF SCRIPTURE IN ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

Continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament

By David A. Nguyen, M.Div.

If we are to use Scripture ethically, we must realize that there is a large degree of continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Christ-event has transformed various applications of the Law, but the underlying principles remain the same. Thus, when approaching ethics, one must ask these two questions: 1) How does the Gospel inform my moral obligation and the decision I will make? 2) Is the underlying principle consistent with that which was revealed in the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ?

Before we unpack this further, it is important to note that the chief difference between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ (Gal 6:2) is one of application. For instance, if under the Law of Moses one was obligated to present burnt offerings unto God, then under the Law of Christ one is obligated to present themselves as living sacrifices to God (Rom 12:2; 1 Pet 2:5). This shows a modified application of an underlying principle. And what necessitated this transformation is the Gospel. That is, the atoning work of Jesus Christ did not do away with the principle of offering sacrifices to God. Instead, the ultimate sacrifice of Christ informs the new application of offering to God the sacrifice of our own bodies. The underlying principles running throughout all Scripture had always been “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.” Because of Christ, we now know more fully how that ought to be applied and lived out, and so we are still bound by a moral obligation (perhaps even a higher one) to fulfill it.

The underlying principles of some OT laws are easily recognizable. For example, in Deuteronomy 22:8, the law requiring the Israelite to build a parapet on the roof of his house is one application of the guiding principle of love and good sense. If one is loving, one would build a house with caution, taking measures that would ensure the safety of those who might walk its premises. The principle of rest is another one that is easily understood when seen in its various applications. God commanded in Exodus 20:8-11 that the Israelites are to do no work on the seventh day. Even the fields are to be left still and unsown in the seventh year. This was an act of mercy so that the poor may eat of it as well (Exo 23:11). Rest is something meaningful, something holy. God’s creatures need rest in order to recuperate and to refocus on God. Later on Jesus makes the intention behind this principle much clearer when he points to himself as the object of their rest (Matt 11:28).

However, there are other OT laws that almost seem arbitrary or cruel and unusual. With such laws, it is much harder to find an underlying principle. How can we arrive at a principle consistent with the spirit of the Mosaic Law yet consistent with the light shed by the gospel? And how does that inform the moral obligations I have today? Let us take for instance the laws regarding stoning. People were under the death penalty for things like blasphemy (Lev 24:16), idolatry (Deut 17:2-5), working on the Sabbath (Exo 35:2), etc. Do these offenses still demand a death sentence? First, we must recognize that the underlying principle remains the same: at the root of blasphemy, idolatry, and working on the Sabbath, is a lack of reverence for the infinite worth of God. And because his worthiness is infinite, sinning against Him is the highest offense and carries with it infinite guilt. We ought to regard sin as horrifying and appalling as it truly is. The Israelites were drawn into a covenant relationship with God, yet they were surrounded by pagan gods competing for their allegiance. Therefore, God chose to apply this principle to its extreme in order to leave no doubt in their minds that sin is not trivial but, indeed, a matter of life and death.

The application of this principle, however, has been transformed by the cross of Christ. Because Christ took the penalty of God’s wrath, God’s justice has been served. Where the theocracy of Israel required stoning for certain sins, the kingdom ruled by Christ offers mercy and grace. Where the law of God required perfect and personal righteousness, the cross fulfilled it and purchased mercy and grace. Therefore, it is not as if God acted inconsistently with the principles of His law. Indeed, in one sense He took the principles and applied it to its fullest extent. No mere stoning of a man could ever bring justice to the slightest insult upon the Name of God (It’s impossible). It required the Son of God Himself to accomplish the impossible. We are exempt from having to apply this principle because the cross of Christ sufficiently dealt with it; we cannot add or take away from what God has done.

We can use the same flow of reasoning to extrapolate principles from other OT laws. Because the underlying principles suggest a general continuity between the OT and NT laws, we must remember to examine these laws through the lens of the gospel and allow the New Covenant to inform us on applications that may or may not have changed since the cross event. In doing so, we will begin to have a deeper appreciation for the unity of the Law while avoiding the pitfalls of legalism.