actor Jack Black dressed as Jesus


Actor Jack Black is known for his humor, not his hermeneutics. But when California voters banned gay marriage last year, the film star decided to delve into the latter - and teach fans a thing or two about proper Bible reading. The result is - a star-studded video that has been viewed 4 million times on - in which Black, dressed as Jesus, enlightens a group of ignorant, uptight Christians that theyā€™ve been making too much out of the Bibleā€™s teaching that sex between men is ā€œan abomination.ā€

ā€œIt says the exact same thing about this shrimp cocktail; Leviticus says shellfish is an abomination,ā€ Black says mockingly, a serving of seafood in his hand. ā€œFriend, it seems to me you pick and choose.ā€

The video plays for laughs, but it raises a serious question that seems to stump many both inside and outside of the church today: Do Christians arbitrarily ā€œpick and chooseā€ which parts of Godā€™s Word to obey? (Or, as Newsweek put it in a cover story last December, ā€œMost of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices. ... Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?ā€)

The answer really isnā€™t as complicated as some make it out to be, said Clinton E. Arnold, chair of the New Testament department at 51ĀÜĄņā€™s seminary, , and vice president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

ā€œItā€™s not a matter of picking and choosing,ā€ he said. ā€œItā€™s a matter of understanding the distinction between the old covenant and the new covenant.ā€

In short, the Levitical laws were part of the old covenant, and were given to Moses specifically for the nation of Israel, Arnold said. When Jesus instituted the new covenant, the old covenant was made &rlquo;obsoleteā€ (); Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Christ is the ā€œendā€ of the Law () and has ā€œabolishedā€ the Law (), he said.

Quite simply, the church is not Israel, and the Mosaic Law is not intended to regulate the Christian life, Arnold said. Rather, Christians are to live according to the new covenant, as laid out by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.

Thatā€™s a concept that many Christians donā€™t fully grasp, said Robert Saucy, distinguished professor of systematic theology at Talbot. Many times, believers make the mistake of trying to divide the Mosaic Law into categories - salvaging the ā€œmoralā€ laws (such as those that pertain to sexuality or divorce), while discarding ā€œcivilā€ and ā€œceremonialā€ laws (such as those that pertain to diet or animal sacrifice), he said.

ā€œI think itā€™s impossible to divide them into different categories,ā€ Saucy said. ā€œThe Jews saw 613 commandments in the Law and they never separated them into three segments. ... Christians are simply not under the Mosaic Law.ā€

Of course, that doesnā€™t mean that the Law serves no purpose for believers. For example, just because an adult is no longer under the childhood bedtime rules set by his parents, that doesnā€™t mean there wasnā€™t a valuable principle behind them to guide his life, Saucy said.

ā€œHe may not have to go to bed at 7 p.m., but he knows that he canā€™t stay up until 4 a.m. every day and expect to be successful and healthy,ā€ he said.

In the same way, Christians ought to look for the principles behind the different Old Testament laws to discern what they say about Godā€™s unchanging holiness, he said. An essential part of this is to understand what the rest of the Bible teaches, especially in the New Testament, he said.

Homosexual behavior, for instance, is clearly shown throughout the rest of Scripture to be inconsistent with Godā€™s will - whether in Genesis or in Paulā€™s letters, Saucy said.

ā€œYou find it as a running theme throughout the Bible,ā€ he said. ā€œIf you didnā€™t have it anywhere else, and you didnā€™t have strong implications from creation, and all you had was Leviticus, then it would be a more difficult question.ā€

Dietary laws, on the other hand, shouldnā€™t indicate to us that certain food was inherently evil in Godā€™s eyes - only that God wanted the nation of Israel to be distinct from surrounding pagan nations and their customs, Arnold said. This is confirmed by Jesusā€™ declaration in that all food is clean, and by Peterā€™s vision to ā€œkill and eatā€ unclean food in .

ā€œGodā€™s holiness doesnā€™t mean that he hates shrimp,ā€ Arnold said. ā€œThe ban on eating shellfish was a way of keeping Israel distinct from the nations. But weā€™re no longer the nation of Israel. Weā€™re the church. And thereā€™s no longer a need to be distinct by old covenant symbols like circumcision or food laws.ā€

In other words, Jack Black may want to stick to comedy.