A study by John G. Reisinger

"And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev. 20:15-16)

Bestiality—a man or woman having intercourse with an animal—was punishable by death under the Mosaic law. When asked by a Theonomist if bestiality is no longer a sin since it is not mentioned in the New Testament Scriptures, a Dispensational seminary professor answered, "No, it is not." The man's answer somehow became associated with what some of us call New Covenant Theology. I can understand a consistent old-line Dispensationalist giving that answer, but it should in no way be connected to what is called New Covenant Theology.

At the heart of this discussion is the basic question about Christian ethics. How does a believer know what is right and wrong for him today? What is the real foundation of his moral absolutes? Those who raise this question about bestiality are using it as a smoke screen to protect their belief that the Ten Commandments, as written on the tablets of stone, are the absolute rule of life for all men in all ages, including Christians today. Covenant theologians insist that the Ten Commandments, given to Israel at Mount Sinai, are the highest moral standard ever given. Those tablets of stone are "THE one eternal and unchanging moral standard for all men of all ages. They are THE moral Law of God."

Others, known as New Covenant theologians, say the New Testament Scriptures are the foundation and final authority for the Christian's morals (cf. Eph. 2:19, 20). We believe the Sermon on the Mount and the moral demands of the New Testament epistles are much higher than anything Moses ever mediated. The covenant theologian then asks, "Where does the New Testament label bestiality a sin?" His point being that unless we can produce a verse that says, "Bestiality is sin" then his view of law has been proven to be true and ours to be false. The answer to the question is not settled by merely looking into a concordance. If it were that easy, the covenant theologian would win hands down.

Let's use bestiality as an illustration of not just one thing, but as representative of how a Christian relates the Old and New Covenants to each other. Now notice I did not say the Old and New Testaments. If you don't know the clear difference between those two things you will probably have trouble with this article.

First, We believe the glossary is in the back of the Book and not the front of the Book. The New Covenant Scriptures interpret the Old Covenant and not vice versa. The words of Moses are not eternal and not necessarily unchanging. The words of Him who replaces Moses as the new Lawgiver gave us the final, full, and authoritative words of the eternal and unchanging God. We believe that Christ is more than a rubber stamp of Moses. We do not believe that Christ merely gives us the true interpretation of Moses, but we insist that Christ is a new Lawgiver in His own right who replaces Moses in exactly the same way that He replaces Aaron. If Christ merely "interprets the true message" of Moses then Jesus was a Rabbi but not a Prophet. True, He would have been the greatest of all Rabbis, but still merely a Rabbi. He did not give new laws, He merely, as a Rabbi, gave the true interpretation of Moses. We could call the Sermon on the Mount "The Talmud of Jesus" but in no sense could we call it the Law of Christ.

We would no more think of putting the conscience of a New Covenant child of God under the authority of Moses than we would send them back to Aaron's ministry as a priest. The bottom line in this discussion is whether Christ is a new Lawgiver who gives new and higher laws than Moses. That is really the only question. We realize this means we need clear evidence—in the twenty-seven books written after Christ came—for believing anything, including the fact that bestiality is still a sin, as an article of faith, but it does not mean we have to have a text that says, "bestiality is a sin."

Second, we have two covenants but we do not have two Bibles. There is not one Bible for national Israel and another Bible for the Church. Israel's Bible is a permanent part of our Bible. Every Scripture, in all of the sixty-six books, is still profitable in instructing a Christian in doctrine and practice. We take 2 Tim. 3:16 seriously. We must see some kind of vital relationship between the life of Abraham, who lived a life of faith before the law was given, and David who lived a life of faith under the law, and a Christian today who lives a life of faith after the law has been dismissed.

Third, one of the first things we realize in reading our whole Bible is that the Old Covenant people of God were treated as minors, or children, and New Covenant believers are treated as adults. Children are always controlled by minute rules and adults are governed by principles. The Old Covenant was "rules-centered" because it governed children (cf. Gal. 3:15–4:7). It told them what they could and couldn't eat, and, in many cases, exactly how they were to cook what is on the OK list. They were told how to dress, how to plant their garden, cut their hair, etc. All of those things were "law" to an Israelite.

Now it is essential that we realize a clear fact: that was not at all a bad situation. Minute rules are good and necessary for immature children. The law covenant, with all its specific rules, was the Pedagogue in the conscience of the Israelite. His life was totally controlled by clear lists. When the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost to indwell every believer, the old Pedagogue was dismissed (cf. Gal. 3:25). Paul specifically says, "we are no longer under a, or the, Pedagogue." There is a sense in which the Holy Spirit is now our Pedagogue but Scripture never gives Him that title. One thing for sure, as our teacher, the Holy Spirit still uses objective rules even though His ministry is not exclusively rules-centered. It is now Person-centered and grace-centered. He glorifies Christ to us and in us.

In other words, a New Covenant child of God does not necessarily need a specific rule to know how to choose his clothes, his meals, or every single moral act. His new Lord does indeed give him specific rules but not a book of rules like the minor child had in Israel. Some may say, "But are you not putting morals and types of clothing both under Christian liberty?" Only if you ignore the New Covenant commandments concerning modesty in dress or you have trouble knowing what is modest. Actually, one New Covenant child of God may apply a biblical principal and be firmly convinced that a given thing is a sin for him but another sincere believer may not see the same thing as sin. This is the reality of Christian liberty. Such a situation was impossible under the rule centered Theocracy established by the Old Covenant. So the lack of any specific thing being mentioned or not mentioned on any "sin list" in the New Covenant does not bother the Christian at all, nor does he feel hopeless and insecure without a full list as under the Old Covenant.

Even though the New Covenant Christian begins with the New Covenant Scriptures as his final authority, he recognizes that those Scriptures are built upon, and are the fulfillment of, the Old Covenant Scriptures. In other words, he does not start at square one or ground zero with his ethics as if there were no ethics at all before Christianity came along. He sees the New Covenant as fulfilling, to the very letter, the Old Covenant. New covenant believers do not think there are two different kinds of morality where the old morality somehow becomes immorality under the New Covenant and visa versa. Anything that is truly moral in its basic nature is always moral, and anything that is immoral in its nature is always immoral. If it was immoral for an Israelite it is still immoral for us today. The real issue is ascertaining precisely what is, and is not, moral.

Our disagreement with classical covenant theology is not over whether there are truly any eternal unchanging moral laws. We surely agree that there are. We merely reject that the idea that the Ten Commandments, or Tablets of the Covenant (cf. Ex. 34:27, 28 and Deut. 9:9–11), are to be equated with that so-called unchanging moral law. To say, "The Ten Commandments," as they are written on the Tablets of Stone, are the rule of life for a Christian is the same as saying, "the Old Covenant is the rule of life for a Christian." To say, "The Ten Commandments, as they are interpreted and applied by our Lord and His Apostles, is a vital part of a Christian's rule of life" is to understand New Covenant theology. Did Moses stone to death the man who picked up sticks because it was an "immoral act?" Was God ready to kill Moses in Exodus 4 because his son was not circumcised and therefore Moses was acting in immorality?

The New Covenant child of God thinks in terms of categories more, but not exclusively, than in specific things. For instance: Did the Holy Spirit give a lengthy list of sexually immoral acts under the New Covenant? Was there a "list" where every single thing on that list was labeled "sexual immorality?" A New Covenant believer may have a list that only has one-half as many specific things as the Old Covenant list but as long as the list condemns the category of "sexual immorality," that is sufficient grounds to include all sexually immoral acts regardless of whether they are, or are not, on the New Covenant list. We know God's character does not change even if later revelation gives us a clearer and higher revelation of His character.

Let me illustrate the principle. When I lived in Lewisburg a company bought a large plot of land and was going to put in a hazardous waste dump. The local populace went to court. Our state laws forbid building a toxic waste dump within five miles of any place from which it would be difficult to evacuate people quickly, such as (it then specifically mentions) a hospital, a school, a nursing facility, and a few other things. There was a federal penitentiary within two miles of the site under consideration, but since the law did not specifically mention "prison" the people who wanted to build the waste facility argued the law did not apply. The judge laughed, denied the permit, and said, "If you can convince me that it would be simple and easy to hastily move prisoners from one maximum security location to another maximum security location, then I will review your request." Case closed!

You do not need all the particulars of a "same kind" category mentioned if the parameters of the general category are clearly spelled out. The Old Covenant clearly condemned porneia (immorality) and the New Covenant Scriptures just as clearly condemns porneia. Fred Zaspel has well said, "It is the interpreter's job to demonstrate the biblical meaning of porneia, and he must do so with his whole Bible." It seems to me that it is the responsibility of anyone who wants to cavil about bestiality to prove the New Testament Scriptures change the meaning of porneia. If bestiality was porneia under the Old Covenant, we would need New Testament evidence that makes it not porneia in the New Testament. Is bestiality, by its very nature, a sexual sin? Let anyone who rejects our position prove that bestiality is a normal and God honoring practice! Just because we reject what the covenant theologian calls the "unity of the one covenant of grace" does not mean that we reject the unity of all of the Scripture.

It amazes me that covenant theologians, who usually are masters of logic, cannot see the same principle with bestiality. If having sex with an animal can somehow be changed into such a thing as not having sex with an animal, then it might be necessary that it be specifically condemned in the New Testament. However, if one is governed by clear principles and sexual immorality is condemned in the New Covenant, then everything on the old list need not be repeated.

However, in the case of bestiality, there is still more evidence. The New Covenant does not emphasize the negatives. True, it has negatives. There are specific things forbidden, but the primary emphasis is positive. We must flee all types of sexual immorality. We also have clear and specific admonitions to keep our body pure for the glory of God. To obey that positive commandment and still commit bestiality would require one to figure out some way to believe one was using his body in a God-honoring way, which is nonsense.

Can anyone seriously say that 1 Cor. 6:13–20 has nary a word to say about having sex with animals? In Romans 1:27 Paul says, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." Can any sane person believe that having sex with an animal is "natural" or that it is not just as "unseemly" as homosexual behavior? Do those who blow the smoke screen sincerely believe that men are NOT "leaving the natural use of the woman" when they turn to animals, but they ARE when they turn to other men?

I do not believe it is possible for anyone to attempt to reject New Covenant theology by hiding behind the smoke screen of bestiality without their revealing that they do not have a clue about either the heart of New Covenant theology or what it means to be live under the awesome power of grace.

Copyright 2004 John G. Reisinger