The Shellfish Controversy

Whenever the topic of "the Bible on homosexual behavior" comes up, it will almost always be argued that "You Christians don't worry about shellfish. Why do you still worry about homosexual behavior?" That, of course, will be offered in various formats. "You pick and choose which Old Testament laws to keep and which to ignore." "The Old Testament is no longer applicable. Why are you making a big deal about it?"

That last is the most typical. While you might reasonably suspect that I'm about to launch into a support for the Old Testament prohibition of same-sex sexual relations, the real reason I'm writing this is that last position. Is it true that the Old Testament is no longer applicable? Let's examine that.

There is a valid reason for the question. Not too many Christians today are concerned about eating lobster or shrimp or pork. The vast majority do not concern themselves with sowing different seeds in a plot of land, squaring their beards, or wearing clothes made from two fabrics. See? No longer applicable! End of discussion.

That, of course, would be a serious error. First, in almost all cases those making this assertion are doing so by rote, not by study. They heard it somewhere, thought it supported their present viewpoint, and continue to throw it out without examining it. Further, I don't think it can be asserted that the Old Testament is no longer applicable if you simply stop long enough to note that Jesus's repeated command to "love your neighbor as yourself" comes directly from the Old Testament. We mostly agree that adultery is still a sin and we certainly concur that child sacrifice is not moral, and so it goes. It must be admitted that at least one Old Testament command is still in effect. So, if one (and quite obviously that's a minimalization of the truth) is still in effect, then we have to ask the question, "What others are still in effect?" Or, perhaps we'd go the other way. "If one is no longer in effect, what others are no longer in effect?"

The answer to these questions, however, needs to have a basis. That is, at the bottom level, the position is "If the Bible says it, it's true." So on what basis would anyone suggest that any of the Old Testament is no longer applicable? Didn't Jesus say, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:17-19)? That's serious. He praised the Pharisees for keeping the minutia of tithing and castigated them for missing "the weightier matters" (Matt 23:23). Paul denies that law-keeping saves anyone, but affirms that the law is "the embodiment of knowledge and truth" (Rom 2:20). He asks and answers, "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Rom 3:31). We need to ask, then, on what basis we set aside any of the Old Testament.

Some of the Old Testament is "set aside" not because it isn't applicable, but because it is complete. The entire sacrificial system is not abrogated, but completed by Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. It isn't gone; it is present and necessary. An incomplete system was fulfilled in Christ's perfect death and resurrection. That is still in effect.

Some of the Old Testament is specifically mentioned in the New. In Mark 7:19 we read that Jesus declared all foods clean. The message, in fact, is repeated in Acts 10. There God orders Peter to eat things previously forbidden. When he refuses, God says, "What God has made clean do not call unclean or common" ... three times. At the Council of Jerusalem they determined this minimal requirement: "That you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:29). In this they specifically refute the need for circumcision (a key component of the controversy). (Later Paul specifies that meat sacrificed to idols is not an issue either.)

We have, then, a basic system of laws in the Old Testament. A key principle regarding these laws is to ask which of them are specifically addressed in the New Testament as fulfilled or no longer applicable. Christ fulfilled the sacrificial system. Dietary laws are not necessary. That's what the Bible says.

There is a third category of Old Testament commands. These are the special commands. These commands were not given as "law". Adam was commanded not to eat the fruit of a particular tree. That tree is no longer available for us to comply (or fail to comply) with that command. Noah was told to build an ark. There is no reason why any of us would think we were obligated to do the same. Israel was given commands specifically designed to make them distinct, separate. Commands given for that purpose are applicable to Israel, but not to all.

This isn't a simple answer like some try to make it. It is not true that "The Old Testament is no longer applicable." Neither is it true that Christians are required to live by Old Testament laws. Some are still applicable and some aren't for various reasons. The New Testament is full of affirmations of Old Testament laws starting with loving God and loving your neighbor, going straight through prohibitions of all manner of sexual immorality (including homosexual behavior), and so on. The real problem is not that it's unclear or unknowable. The real problem is that it takes time, effort, thought, reading -- work. And that's something that too many modern American Christians aren't really keen on doing.