Responding to those who say the Bible is outdated

It's a common scenario. Someone objects to the Bible's teaching on a point of ethics or morality (often homosexuality, promiscuity or divorce), so he cites a couple of Old Testament commandments and says something like, "Well, the Bible also says not to wear a garment made of wool and linen mixed together (Deuteronomy 22:11) and not to eat pork products or shrimp (Leviticus 11:7-12)."

The implication is either that the person upholding biblical standards of sexuality is a hypocrite because he's wearing a linen/wool blend sport coat and ate a hotdog for lunch, or that the Bible's commandments are inconsistent and therefore not credible. And it's not just a hypothetical scenario. A recent New York Times op-ed article argued against a biblical position on homosexuality by suggesting that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally because it also says to "refrain from planting multiple kinds of seed in one field" and not to charge "interest to the poor."

Such arguments may seem convincing at first. But their problem is a failure to recognize the Bible's overarching storyline. They assume that Scripture is largely a list of doctrines and rules. Since some of the rules seem outdated or impractical, the critics reason, all of them should be taken with a grain of salt. The problem with such reasoning is that the Bible isn't merely a list of rules and doctrines. It's a story about how God relates to the world He created. And with a little study it becomes obvious that God gives slightly different instructions to His people in different parts of the story. Read more