Questions We Weren't Supposed to Ask in Church: “Why Do They Quote the Old Testament?”

This week’s question comes from a listener who identifies himself as Jewish, which I think makes it an especially fitting question.

Here’s how he poses it: “Why do conservative Christians turn to the Old Testament for moral arguments when the new covenant with Jesus wiped out the old commandments?”

It’s a great question. And in posing it, Ari clearly knows his basic Christian theology better than many of the conservative Christians he’s asking about.

To answer the question, we have to begin with what Christians mean when they talk about the “new covenant.” One of the key—and admittedly complex—teachings of the New Testament is that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled or completed the demands of the Jewish law, including the law as presented in the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament. The Gospels record Jesus making statements to this effect, but the primary place we find this teaching is, perhaps unsurprisingly, in the writings of the Apostle Paul.

A central dimension of Paul’s teaching about grace—the unmerited favor granted to people through faith in Jesus—is that believers are no longer subject to the dictates of the Jewish law. Paul is remarkably forceful in telling other Jewish Christians that Jesus has freed them from the requirements of the law. This is the sense in which Christians claim there is a “new covenant” initiated by Jesus, one that believers enter through faith in him and his work.

So Ari is right to point out that a basic Christian teaching is that Christians are not subject to all the commandments and restrictions outlined in the Hebrew Bible.

At the same time, Christians still accept the Hebrew Bible as an authoritative part of Scripture, and that relationship can be complicated. Large portions of the Hebrew Bible aren’t focused on the demands of the Jewish law at all. There are long narrative passages, poetic books, wisdom literature, and prophetic writings, all of which Christians continue to read and cite as Scripture.

But Ari’s question gets at something more specific. Many conservative Christians also appeal to portions of the Hebrew Bible that explicitly lay out the requirements of the Jewish law. In my view—and I think Ari is right about this—that’s bad Christian theology. It’s also a little strange coming from people who otherwise place enormous emphasis on the writings of Paul.

So what’s going on? Why do these conservative Christians seem to disregard one of the central teachings of their own religion in such a fundamental way?

I think there are a couple of reasons.

The first issue is that conservative Christians who appeal to Old Testament law don’t appeal to all—or even most—of the commandments found there. They are extremely selective.

As Ari notes, they overwhelmingly choose passages that condemn behaviors they already oppose. Most notoriously, they cite passages condemning homosexual behavior. If you’ve ever had a conversation with a conservative Christian about sexuality, you’ll know that many of the verses they reach for come from the Hebrew Bible. They’re quoting passages from what they themselves describe as the “old covenant”—a covenant they otherwise insist no longer governs their lives.

Why those passages?

Because it’s much easier to construct a biblical argument against same-sex relationships using the Hebrew Bible than it is using the New Testament.

That’s really the key point. Conservative Christians choose these passages because they tell them what they want to hear. They condemn the behaviors they want to condemn and reinforce beliefs they already hold. Their interest in making sure the Bible says what they want it to say ultimately overrides their theology about no longer being bound by the Jewish law.

If you’re familiar with the range of commandments contained in those legal materials, then you know just how selective this approach really is. These same Christians generally argue that Christians are no longer prohibited from eating shellfish or pork. They don’t believe Jewish dietary requirements remain binding. They don’t argue that disobedient adult children should be executed, they don’t insist that Christians avoid tattoos, and they don’t object to clothing woven from mixed fabrics.

No. It’s only a very small number of commandments within the Jewish law that they continue to insist remain universally binding.

If you’ve ever debated this issue with conservative Christians, you also know how maddening those conversations can be. I don’t know how many times someone has quoted anti-gay passages from Leviticus to me, only for me to ask why they don’t also follow the surrounding commandments. More often than not, they don’t even attempt to reconcile the contradiction.

The reason is simple: there isn’t a coherent way to reconcile it.

Given what they already want and need the Bible to say, it simply feels self-evident that these particular passages still apply while others do not. That’s why the first answer to Ari’s question is actually fairly straightforward. Conservative Christians appeal to these passages because doing so serves their interests. They’re not simply being “biblical.” They’re choosing the biblical passages that support their existing views while ignoring others that would undermine the same approach.

There’s also a second explanation, and it brings us to a subject I’ve discussed before: biblical inerrancy.

One of the core assumptions many conservative Christians make is that the Bible is inerrant. It is the word-for-word Word of God, inspired in every way and without error of any kind.

In practice, this means that every verse in the Bible—regardless of where it appears, the historical context in which it was written, or the identity of its human author—ultimately has God as its author. Everything in the Bible is understood to come from a single divine source.

Once you adopt that understanding, it’s easy to see why verses from radically different historical settings and theological contexts can simply be stitched together into a single argument. If every verse ultimately has the same author, then every verse can be marshaled in support of the point you want to make. So if you want to argue that homosexuality is sinful, you can combine verses from Leviticus, Paul’s letters, or anywhere else in Scripture, even if doing so creates tensions with other aspects of Christian theology.

I think this understanding of Scripture also explains why conversations with conservative Christians on this subject can be so frustrating.

When you raise objections—asking why some Old Testament laws still apply while others clearly don’t—they often genuinely don’t understand the point you’re making. The argument simply doesn’t register. Their understanding of what the Bible is and how it functions is so deeply ingrained that this selective use of Scripture feels perfectly natural.

That’s why, in my experience, no amount of pointing out inconsistencies in their use of the Hebrew Bible is likely to change their minds. To do so would require them to abandon not simply one argument about sexuality, but an entire framework for understanding what the Bible is and how Christians should read it.

So let’s return to Ari’s question.

Why do conservative Christians appeal to the moral commandments found in the Jewish law if their own theology teaches that they live under a new covenant?

The answer is that they generally don’t—unless doing so serves their interests.

They are highly selective about which verses they cite, when they cite them, and why they cite them. Once a particular passage reinforces a position they already hold, it ultimately doesn’t matter whether it comes from the Old Testament or the New Testament. If it supports the conclusion they want to reach, they’ll pick it up and use it.

-Dan Miller