Posts
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in"
I'm in a new city this week but work is the same old grind. I hope I'll have some free time tonight or tomorrow to catch up.
In the mean time, read the comments, the commenters are knocking it out of the park. :-)
What exactly does 'uncovering nakedness' refer to? Is this sexual ethics or more of a 'judge not' kind of command?
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing most of the conversation will revolve around chapter 18, but I thought it was interesting to see the origin of the term "scapegoat" in chapter 16.
ReplyDeleteLeah,
Where the KJV says "uncover nakedness", the NIV says "have sexual relations". The interesting thing I noticed in the KJV verse 20, it specifies "lying carnally" with a neighbor's wife, although the NIV still uses "have sexual relations". I don't know why the KJV made some kind of distinction while the NIV did not, and I don't know what that distinction is supposed to mean.
Did anyone else find it odd that sandwiched between a bunch of commands about sex, there was also a prohibition about sacrificing children to a different god, Molek? Was this particular god or the ritual of sacrificing children to it somehow related to sex?
ReplyDeleteI like how in chapter 18 the authors pretty much say that Egyptians and Canaanites will have sex with anyone and anything. That's why the land "vomited" the Canaanites out. I also like how the KJV keeps a lot of those physiological metaphors like "vomiteth out her inhabitants" and emotions being felt in various abdominal organs. Most other translations don't include them. The euphemisms like "uncover the nakedness of" are also pretty great. I definitely like the KJV best. Even though it's not the same stylization as the original Hebrew and Aramaic (or even Greek), it's still the most stylized English translation.
ReplyDeleteLev. 18:23 gives the reason not to have sex with animals as "confusion." Depending on what the original connotation of the Hebrew term was here, this might support Mary Douglas's hypothesis that Leviticus's prohibitions are organized around avoiding category confusion.
Lev. 18:21 warns Israelites not to burn their children to the deity Molech. If I remember correctly, we'll see many more mentions of this Molech guy in the OT. Yahweh kinda hates him. Molech is the Flanders to Yahweh's Homer Simpson. This particular verse refers to Molech's special penchant for requiring child sacrifices of his suplicants.
I'm curious about Lev. 17:3-4, which warns against killing an animal without bringing it as an offering to Yahweh at the door of the tabernacle. Maybe somebody has read a commentary about this. The way I see it, this can be interpreted a number of ways. It could be a kind of Kosher/Halal regulation (don't make meat of your animals without Yahweh's blessing) or it could be a prohibition against sacrificing animals to other deities, like later in the chapter. Alternatively, the emphasis could be on the location of the sacrifice, the tabernacle, making it a sort of pro-Jerusalem-temple rule. Does anyone have some insight into this?
ReplyDeleteI noticed that the 'fire of Molech' thing does seem out of place here in chapter 18, amongst the sexual prohibitions.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteI had assumed that God didn't want sacrifices in the fields because then the priest class doesn't get to eat them. Considering it's the priest class giving these laws, it probably is that simple, but with the thing about not worshiping other deities thrown in to make it sound more plausible.
John Calvin wrote this about Lev. 18:21:
ReplyDeleteIn these three precepts Moses more lightly touches on what we have lately seen set forth at greater length in Deuteronomy; for there he condemns impious offerings, as well as the responses of familiar spirits, magical arts, and enchantments. He now in the first place adverts to adulterous sacrifices, especially to that impure and detestable service of consecrating their children to Moloch, as they called him, the idol of the Gentiles; and then adds a prohibition, that they should give no heed to false revelations. But in these two passages of Leviticus he only enumerates two classes, viz., to use auguries and divinations, and to seek responses from familiar spirits, and to consult magicians or enchanters; yet he includes all the others of which we have previously spoken. And, lest they should think the crime a light one, he says that all they are “defiled” who devote themselves to this kind of curiosity. The confirmation, which is added at the end of both clauses, has relation to the sum of the First Commandment; for when God declares Himself to be “Jehovah, and the God of Israel,” he both claims the worship which is due to Him alone, and also condemns all the superstitions whereby pure religion is adulterated. There is also an antithesis implied, in which God contrasts Himself with all fictitious idols; and therefore the words may be thus paraphrased, — Since I am the eternal God, and separated from all others which the Gentiles foolishly make to themselves, and since I have chosen you to myself as my peculiar people, I would have you, as you ought to be, pure and separated from all defilements.
16:8
ReplyDeleteMy bible translates the familiar term scapegoat as "Precipice", and notes that the word, Azazel, may be an old term for a certain demon. Why it doesn't accept the KJV's "scapegoat" translation is not mentioned.
The word azazel occurs exactly thrice in the Bible, all in this chapter. I imagine this is one of the "lost" words I mentioned in the last post. Is the entire scapegoat concept an invention of the KJV?
Does 16:20-22 seems pretty similar to the scapegoat ritual, but with one goat instead of two, and no lots. In both, a goat is bestowed with the sin of Israel and let go in the wilderness.
Ch. 17 begins the Holiness Code, which was originally a separate document. Notice it starts repeating stuff we just read. (The prohibition on blood-eating, to choose one example.)
Moses and Aaron's conception violated 18:13, but I guess you could say that in the Bible's narrative the law wasn't handed down yet.
Homophobic christians who reference 18:22 are idiots. As you've seen, it's in a sea of otherwise irrelevant and ignored law. In almost all conceptions of xianity, the Jewish law has been superseded by Jesus's sacrifice, so it's incredibly disingenuous to pretend this *one* law is something God still gives two shits about.
I have nothing but spitting disgust for "family values" Christians, if you didn't notice.
Here's my question. So, the ark was in the Holy of Holies, and only Aaron could go in to it and then only on the Day of Atonement once a year. Okay, great mystery and all, God descending to the Mercy seat, etc. But weren't they supposed to be wandering in the desert? Didn't it kind of destroy the mystery when they took down the tabernacle and put the ark on a wagon to move to their next location? Or did they have some way of transporting it to preserve the mystery?
ReplyDeleteAnd I apologize but I can't help mentioning: Moloch . . . our first "Buffy" reference in the Bible! :)
Alternatively, the emphasis could be on the location of the sacrifice, the tabernacle, making it a sort of pro-Jerusalem-temple rule. Does anyone have some insight into this?
ReplyDeleteHere is what my annotated bible says about it:
(v. 4) The Holiness Code envisages proximity to Jerusalem, while Deut. supposes possible residence in places far distant from it.
(v. 5) "Bring to the LORD": i.e. to the Temple in Jerusalem. This mandate reflects a time directly before or shortly after the Babylonian Exile, when there was a Judean community, but small and confined to the immediate environs of Jerusalem.
This all assumes a late date for P. Which I'm leaning towards myself. Sorry, Friedman!
But weren't they supposed to be wandering in the desert? Didn't it kind of destroy the mystery when they took down the tabernacle and put the ark on a wagon to move to their next location? Or did they have some way of transporting it to preserve the mystery?
ReplyDeleteI never thought about it that way. It would really wreck the illusion if everyone could see the tent go down and the HoH exposed.
The answer is simple: they never wandered the desert. All the description of Tabernacle worship is really description of the Temple in Jerusalem. All the law presupposes their later settled, agricultural existence in Canaan. I think most of it is inapplicable to a tribe wandering the desert.
The reality is hard to suss out, because the tabernacle IKEA instructions are SO exact, you have to think they actually were describing a physical structure. But at the same time, the Tabernacle worship law is clearly representing Temple worship.
As I've said, my theory is that the Tabernacle is a conflation of Temple worship with the Tent of the Presence, an older and simpler concept. The Tabernacle could have existed, but it would have been a forged relic (or a repo) of a legendary structure.
Homophobic christians who reference 18:22 are idiots. As you've seen, it's in a sea of otherwise irrelevant and ignored law. In almost all conceptions of xianity, the Jewish law has been superseded by Jesus's sacrifice, so it's incredibly disingenuous to pretend this *one* law is something God still gives two shits about.
ReplyDeleteThank you!!!
@Brian Hitt "I'm curious about Lev. 17:3-4, which warns against killing an animal without bringing it as an offering to Yahweh at the door of the tabernacle."
ReplyDeleteI believe it is referencing the ritual of the peace offering being something that god, the priests, and the people all share in. If you kill it on your own, it defeats the purpose.
On a side note, I would hate to see the cleaning tab from the Tabernacle.
@Leah
ReplyDelete"What exactly does 'uncovering nakedness' refer to? Is this sexual ethics or more of a 'judge not' kind of command?"
I hope this helps
(MHC)
These laws relate to the seventh commandment, and, no doubt, are obligatory on us under the gospel, for they are consonant to the very light and law of nature: one of the articles, that of a man's having his father's wife, the apostle speaks of as a sin not so much as named among the Gentiles, 1 Corinthians 5:1. Though some of the incests here forbidden were practised by some particular persons among the heathen, yet they were disallowed and detested, unless among those nations who had become barbarous, and were quite given up to vile affections. Observe,
I. That which is forbidden as to the relations here specified is approaching to them to uncover their nakedness, 6.
1. It is chiefly intended to forbid the marrying of any of these relations. Marriage is a divine institution; this and the sabbath, the eldest of all, of equal standing with man upon the earth: it is intended for the comfort of human life, and the decent and honourable propagation of the human race, such as became the dignity of man's nature above that of the beasts.
It is honourable in all, and these laws are for the support of the honour of it. It was requisite that a divine ordinance should be subject to divine rules and restraints, especially because it concerns a thing wherein the corrupt nature of man is as apt as in any thing to be wilful and impetuous in its desires, and impatient of check. Yet these prohibitions, besides their being enacted by an incontestable authority, are in themselves highly reasonable and equitable.
@bananacat1,
ReplyDelete(MHC)
A law against that which was the most unnatural idolatry, causing their children to pass through the fire to Moloch, 21. Moloch (as some think) was the idol in and by which they worshipped the sun, that great fire of the world; and therefore in the worship of it they made their own children either sacrifices to this idol, burning them to death before it, or devotees to it, causing them to pass between two fires, as some think, or to be thrown through one, to the honour of this pretended deity, imagining that the consecrating of but one of their children in this manner to Moloch would procure good fortune for all the rest of their children. Did idolaters thus give their own children to false gods, and shall we think any thing too dear to be dedicated to, or to be parted with for, the true God? See how this sin of Israel (which they were afterwards guilty of, notwithstanding this law) is aggravated by the relation which they and their children stood in to God. Ezekiel 16:20 , Thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these thou hast sacrificed. Therefore it is here called profaning the name of their God; for it looked as if they thought they were under greater obligations to Moloch than to Jehovah; for to him they offered their cattle only, but to Moloch their children.
Sorry folks that tonight is the Matthew Henry night, but he has i feel better answers and a source that you can also read and verify what i have posted here. Now that i have written that, let's continue:
ReplyDelete@Brian Hitt
"Lev. 17:3-4"
(MHC)
Some think that the children of Israel were by this law forbidden, while they were in the wilderness, to kill any beef, or mutton, or veal, or lamb, or goat, even for their common eating, but at the door of the tabernacle, where the blood and the fat were to be offered to God upon the altar, and the flesh to be returned back to the offerer to be eaten as a peace-offering, according to the law. And the statute is so worded ( 3, 4) as to favour this opinion, for it speaks generally of killing any ox, or lamb, or goat. The learned Dr. Cudworth puts this sense upon it, and thinks that while they had their tabernacle so near them in the midst of their camp they ate no flesh but what had first been offered to God, but that when they were entering Canaan this constitution was altered (Deuteronomy 12:21), and they were allowed to kill their beasts of the flock and herd at home, as well as the roebuck and the hart; only thrice a year they were to see God at his tabernacle, and to eat and drink before him there. And it is probable that in the wilderness they did not eat much flesh but that of their peace-offerings, preserving what cattle they had, for breed, against they came to Canaan; therefore they murmured for flesh, being weary of manna; and Moses on that occasion speaks as if they were very sparing of the flocks and the herds, Numbers 11:4,22. Yet it is hard to construe this as a temporary law, when it is expressly said to be a statute for ever ( 7); and therefore, 2. It should seem rather to forbid only the killing of beasts for sacrifice any where but at God's altar. They must not offer sacrifice, as they had done, in the open field ( 5), no, not to the true God, but it must be brought to the priest, to be offered on the altar of the Lord: and the solemnity they had lately witnessed, of consecrating both the priests and the altar, would serve for a good reason why they should confine themselves to both these that God had so signally appointed and owned. ...
... This law obliged not only the Israelites themselves, but the proselytes or strangers that were circumcised and sojourned among them, who were in danger of retaining an affection to their old ways of worship. If any should transgress this law, and offer sacrifice any where but at the tabernacle, ...
@Helene & Abbie
ReplyDeleteThe priests go in and cover them up so they can be carried lest they die
Numbers 4:5-15
Tabernacle design is based upon the structure of the world.
Garden(Most holy place protected by flaming cherubim)...Eden...World (Gen 2:8-16)
3 decks of the ark (Gen 6:16)
3 layers to Mt. Sinai (Ex 24:6-15) - blood is at the bottom, food and drink are in the middle and God is in the glory cloud up top.
3 layers to the tabernacle/temple - out courts (blood sacrifice) - holy place (face bread) - Most Holy Place (God in the glory cloud)
Finally Christ the great high priest enters God's presence in the Highest heaven and sits down having made the final sacrifice for sin.
@Abbie && @Susan
ReplyDelete"Homophobic christians who reference 18:22 are idiots. As you've seen, it's in a sea of otherwise irrelevant and ignored law. In almost all conceptions of xianity, the Jewish law has been superseded by Jesus's sacrifice, so it's incredibly disingenuous to pretend this *one* law is something God still gives two shits about."
Abbie: Since you have demonstrated your total hatred for the New Testament ;-) you missed some other areas of scripture that do condemn this sin. Romans 1:26-31;I Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19.
No these people are not Homophobic, some do and say stupid stuff, i will agree with you on that (those might be the homophobic ones :-D), yet this is still sin in Gods eyes and there are people that still let it be know that it is such.
I was on a trip and a lady knew i was "religious" and asked me about this. I told her what i know, it's sin. Do i look down upon her? No way, no how. (Romans 12:3) I cannot think of myself more highly that i ought to think. God has a way of dealing with his son (Romans 12:3; Hebrews 12:8) and i am thankful that He does lest i be what is mentioned in Hebrews. She then asked about a non-practising homosexual, and i replied with i am a non-practising polygamist. It's still sin and i am the current Chief among sinners (I Timothy 1:15).
And no "Jewish law has been superseded by Jesus's sacrifice" If you had read the New Testament you would have know Jesus Himself said (Matthew 5:17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. What i believe that Jesus did was present the final passover sacrifice. Did He destroy that law? Nope, we still should not lie, steal, murder, covet and the greatest of all is "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
It's just the areas we have considered our "lifestyle" or "the way i was born" (well that i do agree with see Ephesians 2:1-3) that goes against Gods Holiness that we want removed. Do i want to see harm come upon these people? Nope not at all. People hating me because of my beliefs, well that's just par for the course, Jesus said that "ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" (Matthew 10:22) and John 15:9 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Luke 6:27,28 lays down my orders
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
What part of this law is "otherwise irrelevant"? I know which ones are ignored. :-D Is it "otherwise irrelevant" because people ignore them?
@Helene
ReplyDelete"So, the ark was in the Holy of Holies, and only Aaron could go in to it and then only on the Day of Atonement once a year. Okay, great mystery and all, God descending to the Mercy seat, etc. But weren't they supposed to be wandering in the desert? Didn't it kind of destroy the mystery when they took down the tabernacle and put the ark on a wagon to move to their next location? Or did they have some way of transporting it to preserve the mystery?"
Numbers 9:15-23 Gives some information as to what goes on. The pillar cloud/fire covered the tent. When it moved the people would move. This would be God leaving the tent to lead the people somewhere else. Then when the cloud would come to rest the people would stay, put the tent back up and God would come reside in it until He decided to move again. I am not sure there was to be much mystery about the Ark. They will carry it out with them to battle in the future. I think it had to do more with the presence of God. What i understand it was a limitation of coming in to preform the duties of the priest, not in taking orders and disassembling the tent to move to a new location.
It's late is should go to bed. see you guys tomorrow.
Abbie: Since you have demonstrated your total hatred for the New Testament ;-) you missed some other areas of scripture that do condemn this sin. Romans 1:26-31;I Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19.
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about the OT here, the rules supposedly handed down by God. Paul was a man and he has opinions. He wasn't a big fan of the man-on-man. So what?
I don't HATE the NT, I just think it's smaller and less interesting than the Hebrew Bible.
And no "Jewish law has been superseded by Jesus's sacrifice" If you had read the New Testament you would have know Jesus Himself said (Matthew 5:17)
That's Matthew. Paul says something completely different. I mean, Romans 2:17 lays out that Jews are responsible for the Law, but Gentiles aren't. Matthew had a different opinion, no big deal.
What part of this law is "otherwise irrelevant"? I know which ones are ignored. :-D Is it "otherwise irrelevant" because people ignore them?
The part of the law that is irrelevant is the pages and pages of silly law everybody ignores. "Ignored" is a good definition of "irrelevant". Are you saying Christians are supposed to be sacrificing whole-offerings? Are tattoos really off-limits? Do you have to order your steak well-done or fear God's wrath? (Lev. 19:26) Does got hate figs and shellfish? Etc etc etc.
@Edward
ReplyDelete"What part of this law is "otherwise irrelevant"?
You're kidding, right?
1. He that curseth his father of mother shall surely be put to death.
2. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
3. Wizards shall be stoned to death.
4. A blasphemer shall be stoned to death.
5. Thou shalt not sow field with mingled seed.
6. Garments woven of linen and wool shall not be worn.
7. Do not plow with an ox and an ass together.
8. No Haircuts.
9. If a man is discovered raping a virgin who is not betrothed, he must marry her.
10. Don't eat shrimp!!
I could go on and on. "Relevant" isn't probably the best word to be throwing around while the group is reading Leviticus. It's 90+% irrelevant and any thinking person can see that.
Modern xianity's laser like focus on homosexuality - to the exclusion of all this other 'relevant' law, well we can only hope for the day when that's irrelevant too. It can't come soon enough for me.
Edward, did you even read my comment? I understand what sacrificing a child to Molech is. My question was why it's lumped in with a bunch of sexual laws. It seems very out of place there. Please don't talk to me like I'm a complete idiot without even answering my actual question.
ReplyDelete"What part of this law is "otherwise irrelevant?"
ReplyDeleteDo you go to your priest whenever you have a rash or whenever you have mold in your house? Because this book has been pretty clear about what you are to do if you have either of those things. Do you take your house apart brick by brick if the priest declares that the mold or mildew is the wrong type? Do you quarantine yourself for 7 days any time you have a skin lesion?
Did you even read the rest of this book at all?
@bananacat1,
ReplyDelete"Edward, did you even read my comment?"
Yes i did read your comment. I should have proofread my reply better. This is included here, as i feel, because as these people were engaging in these acts they would end up most likely having kids. And because of the customs of the land they were going into they would be tempted to practice their rituals. Maybe in hopes of gaining favor with that god so they could have more kids.
"Please don't talk to me like I'm a complete idiot without even answering my actual question."
No i did not mean that in any way. I am sorry it came across as such.
"This is included here, as i feel, because as these people were engaging in these acts they would end up most likely having kids."
ReplyDeletelol, I love it!
Yahweh: Please guys, don't have sex with other men, animals, or close kin. . . but IF you DO. . . and someone gets pregnant and has kids (well, probably not the men or beasts). . . please don't burn them to Molech, he's a real jerk!
@bananacat1,
ReplyDelete"Did you even read the rest of this book at all?"
Yes i read rest of the book. Did these people have doctors back in their day? And heck in the first 300 years AD who started hospitals? The priests. So ya if i lived back then i would, however things have changed today, even the priest would tell me to call in a specialist. Is this instruction irrelevant? No we just have someone else to go to today, however not to much long ago the priest is where we would go. There is a difference here from external and internal instructions. Some of these commandments deal with mans environment, other deal with mans heart.
"Do you quarantine yourself for 7 days any time you have a skin lesion?"
Yes for some skin lesion there are times when you would be quarantined. Especially back then when MDT was not known to them or treatments available. It's for the public safety.
@David
ReplyDeleteWhile some may focus on homosexuality in Lev 18, I'd also focus on the incest, adultery, child sacrifice and the bestiality of the same chapter. I'd call all of those sexual sins VERY relevant for our current understanding of sexual union.
This irrelevant claim would carry more weight if you also advocate adultery, child sacrifice, incest and bestiality.
@Faris
ReplyDeleteI think prohibitions against incest, bestiality and child sacrifice (really? is THAT your argument - because if you have a big child sacrifice problem in your neighborhood you really should think about moving dude) are just dandy. They would carry more weight in this book, however, if they weren't mixed in with so much clearly irrelevant tripe.
We're only halfway through Leviticus - I'm sticking with my 90+% irrelevancy statistic.
@David,
ReplyDeleteSever hundred thousand children are sacrificed, ripped apart, destroyed each year in the name of personal freedom. Molech worship is still alive and well, it's just modernized.
However, concerning your list above, do you think that all the commandments are of the same nature???
Do you really believe that having intercourse with a sheep or a goat is the same type of prohibition as yoking an ox and donkey together???
It seems very lazy of any thinking person to lump all those commandments together without any discernment as to their purpose, scope and design.
@Faris
ReplyDelete"However, concerning your list above, do you think that all the commandments are of the same nature???"
I don't recall stating they were all of the same nature. I merely stated they were all irrelevant.
Regardless of the "purpose, scope and design" of the prohibition on wearing fabrics woven of two different fibers - it remains of little relevance in modern society. That was the point I was making.
But I think the point we're making is that the Bible itself lumps all these things together. Nowhere does God say "These are the REALLY important laws, and those over there are the ones that I'm only including because of your lack of scientific knowledge." 'We make those distinctions from a modern perspective. If a Christian says "It says RIGHT HERE that homosexuality is an abomination" then I have the right to say that eating shellfish is an equal abomination. The OT makes no distinction. Where does the text say that having intercourse with a sheep is a greater prohibition than yoking an ox and donkey together? We make that distinction from our perspective because to us bestiality is still very yucky but yoking two types of animals together doesn't seem like that big a deal.
ReplyDeleteThese were a minority people who were trying to become the majority. Of course they had strong commandments against any kind of sexual contact that wouldn't result in legitimate offspring. But I maintain that the text itself doesn't apply levels of seriousness to the word "abomination."
Just a quick thank you to Edward for that explanation about the presence of God being what makes the holy of holies . . . holy. I didn''t think about the fact that once God departed to lead them to the next place the sacred space wasn't really sacred any more. That makes sense in the context of the stories.
"So ya if i lived back then i would, however things have changed today,"
ReplyDeleteYes, things have changed today, yet that one little verse remains exactly the same, apparently. You can dress up your hypocrisy any way you want, but you're still saying that "things have changed" is a good reason to ignore some rules, but not a good reason to ignore others. It's not logically consistent; it's really just a weak excuse to pretend that you're not the hypocrite you actually are.
Faris,
ReplyDeleteIs this really gonna turn into a debate on abortion? If so, I challenge you to find any passage in the Bible that says abortion is murder or that an embryo is equivalent to a person.
I knew Leviticus would get ugly.
ReplyDeleteDo you really believe that having intercourse with a sheep or a goat is the same type of prohibition as yoking an ox and donkey together???
Not from my chair here in 2011. But... If we're allowed to use our modern sensibilities to sort out "law that still matters" from "law that is irrelevant", what's the point?
As people have said, there is no in-text distinction between this supposed strata of relevancy. What is the rational criteria for knowing which is which?
@Abbie and David
ReplyDelete"What is the rational criteria for knowing which is which?
Do you consider Christians hypocritical because we no longer sacrifice bulls and goats?
Do you consider Christians hypocritical because we no longer sacrifice bulls and goats?
ReplyDeleteOnly the ones that otherwise quote Leviticus as a moral authority. I mean, God seems pretty obsessed with animal sacrifice. It gets a lot of space in his book. Why *shouldn't* it still be practised?
Dismissing it as obviously not relevant weakens any claim that the REST of the book deserves our slavish loyalty. Why is it no longer relevant? You can't use the "well, DUH" argument.
The law can only be sorted into "relevant" and "silly" and "backwards" categories by us applying our modern morality to it. Which is why the Bible is *useless* as a moral guide. If we can't take it on its word, and have to rationally parse out the silly irrelevant parts, it's not doing its job.
Do you consider Christians hypocritical because we no longer sacrifice bulls and goats?
ReplyDeleteI don 't know that we would use hypocritical to describe someone who doesn't sacrifice goats or eat shrimp, but we do feel it's a bit spurious to be so ademant that some of these rules stand and some don't. Now I am not going to get involved in a chat about my own moral opinions but I thought Jesus just kept the one :LOve your neighbour as yourself"? I think I can more or less go with that bit
@bananacat1
ReplyDelete"excuse to pretend that you're not the hypocrite you actually are."
Do you know enough about me to make that claim? Please point out where i'm in error. If you really know me this will be easy. :-D
"find any passage in the Bible that says abortion is murder or that an embryo is equivalent to a person."
I ask this with all respect, are you looking for a specific verse that says plainly "abortion is murder" or would you take a passages and the context for your answer? Just two, don't want to invest my time if you want the actual word abortion.
Exodus 21:22 care is to be taken with the woman with child and Psalms 139:13 He is talking about himself. Not some blob.
@momof atheists
"but I thought Jesus just kept the one :LOve your neighbour as yourself"
No Jesus kept them all, even his garment (John 19:24). If He had broken one of these laws He could not be the Messiah. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law... perfectly.
@Abbie
ReplyDelete"God seems pretty obsessed with animal sacrifice. It gets a lot of space in his book. Why *shouldn't* it still be practiced?"
Have you ever been taught something that wasn't meant to last forever but was used to prepare you for something greater?
As you were growing up, did anyone ever tell you to never cross the street without an adult holding your hand? or never stay up past 8:00? or never touch a knife?
The very same people who give these rules also give rules like, "Don't hit your sister" or "Don't call people names."
Some rules are now silly for me to follow. I don't need an adult to cross the street with but some are still good solid rules for me to follow like don't hit my sister in the face. Does this mean that parent's rules are silly and useless as a moral guide?
@David,
ReplyDeleteWow you really knocked it "out of the park." :-D
I read your post earlier today, but knew i would not have enough time to write the response for this one.
These laws were given to the people of Israel as they went into their promised land. This was their national law. It was for the Jews to follow, however they lost their land because of disobedience and many of these laws could not be kept any more. The obediences to this law or lack thereof has come up before. I am going to use this one instances that you can read yourself.
(John 8:3-11)
So what is it, obey the law of Moses or the law of Rome? And i think this is where the problem arises. There are many people that view the Christians as still wanting to throw the stone. (Granted from my perspective they are not Christians that so easily throw them "WBC", however that is another post.) And then we have the other side that wants to do as the Romans do. Throw the law of God out and live the way we want, the way that feels good. Yet what did Jesus say unto this woman? Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. So Jesus even acknowledged her actions were sin, yet we don't want to hear that now do we. It's not sin to us, it's our lifestyle. Yet in Gods eyes it's sin. It is that thing that separates us from Him.
To answer your top ten i have done so in-line, if you want further clarification on any of these let me know.
"1. He that curseth his father of mother shall surely be put to death."
Don't respect your parents your highly unlikely to respect any other authority figure. We do have allot of prisons. :-D So ya after a couple are taken out i think people will get the message.
2. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
3. Wizards shall be stoned to death.
I will put these two together. Ya i believe we cannot just go out and kill the witches and wizards, however i have read of recent accounts in foreign countries where the witches/wizards/local medicine man has come up against the Christian, and lost their life. The Christian did not even lift a finger to touch them. In the most recent one i read the Christian just informed the man that God does his fighting, sat down in a chair, the medicine man started to choke and in 5 min was dead. So many people had gathered from the village to see what was going on, the man decided that it was a good time to preach the gospel (taken from Radical by David Platt, but not verbatim copied. If you need to know the page let me know. I will need to get the book back from a friend.)
4. A blasphemer shall be stoned to death.
Again i cannot go around killing people because of the laws of the country i am in, however i can ask them why out of all the deities and religious leaders it is only God and Jesus that they have decided to use in such a manner. I do go around and say "Oh Buddha" every now and then. Try it, it will grow on ya. :-D
5. Thou shalt not sow field with mingled seed.
Ya this is common sense now that i had a garden. I wish i had taken this to heart before i planted. :-) You plant one thing and it will grow up and choke the other plant. Or you would have a harder harvest because you have to sort through your crop. I think we should keep this one. :-D However below from MHC we have something that would explain it as well.
6. Garments woven of linen and wool shall not be worn.
ReplyDelete(MHC)
The sowing of mingled corn and the wearing of linsey-woolsey garments are forbidden, either as superstitious customs of the heathen or to intimate how careful they should be not to mingle themselves with the heathen nor to weave any of the usages of the Gentiles into God's ordinances. Ainsworth suggests that it was to lead Israel to the simplicity and sincerity of religion, and to all the parts and doctrines of the law and gospel in their distinct kinds. As faith is necessary, good works are necessary, but to mingle these together in the cause of our justification before God is forbidden, Galatians 2:16.
7. Do not plow with an ox and an ass together.
one more from MHC
There appears not any thing at all of moral evil in these things, and therefore we now make no conscience of sowing wheat and rye together, ploughing with horses and oxen together, and of wearing linsey-woolsey garments; but hereby is forbidden either, 1. A conformity to some idolatrous customs of the heathen. Or, 2. That which is contrary to the plainness and purity of an Israelite. They must not gratify their own vanity and curiosity by putting those things together which the Creator in infinite wisdom had made asunder: they must not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, nor mingle themselves with the unclean, as an ox with an ass. Nor must their profession and appearance in the world be motley, or party-coloured, but all of a piece, all of a kind.
8. No Haircuts.
No problems it's not growing great here anyway. :-D I believe this is to break customs held in Egypt. Recall what they did when they had Joseph come before Pharaoh? Genesis 41:14 I feel this is again a way God is setting the Israelites apart from those around them.
9. If a man is discovered raping a virgin who is not betrothed, he must marry her.
That is if the father will allow it Exodus 22:16-17. And we see where the man did want to marry her in Genesis 34:2. That did not turn out so well for him i recall ;-)
10. Don't eat shrimp!!
I read The Makers Diet by Jordan S. Rubin. N.M.D. These are very toxic. Funny how long it took us to figure this out and God told Israel long ago. And yes i have a problem with Coconut Shrimp and the local Chinese Buffet. It is something i am working through. I hope bananacat1 does not read this she will know one of my many sins. :-D
Strictly speaking linen/wool mixtures were worn for certain specific reasons (the high priest's clothing in Exodus 28:6 and 39:29 and the fringes described in Numbers 15:37-40).
ReplyDeleteAlso many children (and others) in Africa have been accused of being witches and left to fend for themselves. The Nigerian Humanists and others movement to rescue these abandoned children has led to them being attacked by some Christians. Though other Christians have also opposed the scapegoating. Other victims are women and/or elderly who are banished to witch camps.
BTW did anyone notice in the list of incest that father/daughter was not explicitly listed (implicitly it was in that one can't have sexual intercourse with a mother and her daughter since one's own daughter would have to be a daughter of someone you've already had sexual intercourse with).
Does this mean that parent's rules are silly and useless as a moral guide?
ReplyDeleteOkay, I get what you're analogy is saying. But I don't know if its complete. Sure, there's plenty of silly "rules" you grow out of obeying, but parents can also (unknowingly) teach their children outright falsehoods, and it can take years for the children to realize their parents were wrong. (I grew up thinking all poor people abused welfare because they were too lazy to work. Eventually I realized I had been raised by Republicans!)
It's also a bit patronizing to Jews.
@Edward
ReplyDeleteAfter reading that, I'm not entirely sure I even want to talk with you. Is anyone else truly disturbed by this?
#1-4 make it sound as if you pine for the day when killing wayward children, witches, etc was permissible.
"Again i cannot go around killing people because of the laws of the country i am in..."
BECAUSE of the laws? Is that all that stops you Edward? Sitting blithely by watching a 'medicine man' choke to death in a few minutes sound like a good time to you? (that story is anecdotal and a load of crap btw) Are you aware of the atrocities happening even today with children accused of 'witchcraft' in parts of Africa?
Nope, can't do it. I was going to respond to your points, but on further reflection - no.
I am loving this blog and learning so much, but I will have no further interaction with you Edward. I think you are a dangerous individual.
Where oh where is our fearless leader? I've finished Leviticus (thankfully!). How is everyone else holding up??
ReplyDeleteI've been waiting until a post is made and then scrambling to read the chapters. But honestly with Leviticus I've kind of been speed-reading.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize how many days it'd been. In the lull I got around to finishing 1st Samuel 4-6 on my blog.
@David
ReplyDeleteWow! really?
"#1-4 make it sound as if you pine for the day when killing wayward children, witches, etc was permissible."
No not really i don't think about it that much at all. Only when i hear about a kid shooting up a school, killing his parents/grandparents/girlfriend/baby that i think just knock the kid off so society does not have to pay to put him up for life in prison.
"BECAUSE of the laws? Is that all that stops you Edward?"
Maybe i was not clear on the context. And yes the law does stop me Thou shalt not kill. simple enough.
"Are you aware of the atrocities happening even today with children accused of 'witchcraft' in parts of Africa?"
Nope, but i am aware of Christians being tortured and killed in Africa, China, Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Iraq, etc. Just because they choose the Christian Faith.
"I think you are a dangerous individual."
I think i am too. :-D (Acts 17:6) I think its because this media does not allow for extended discussion to completely understand and articulate ones beliefs. However i could just be doing it wrong. If you honestly think i want to see death come upon people you are in serious error. However i cannot in anyway make you believe otherwise, i believe you feel that way because you want to. I'm not sure if anything i put here would convince you otherwise. If you had read from my earlier post you might have questioned me first on this. However i could be wrong.
@Edward: wow!
ReplyDelete@David: yup!
@David,
ReplyDeleteSorry i should not have posted as thou you have followed this blog every day. You might not have read my previous comments.
@David
ReplyDeleteI just read the first link that Erp posted in regards to Nigeria. That even disturbs me. So i can see if you lump me in with those people how you would get the reactions to my post that you did. Even when thinking you placed me in with these people i was disturbed. That is some sick stuff. Just like the Lords Liberation Army. Just because they have the title does not mean they are on the side you would, at first read, think they are on.
I can see if i was stuck with that group trying to convince you i believe otherwise is a losing battle.
No i don't think we should go around killing kids.
@Abbie
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you get the analogy because that's the reality of what the Scriptures teach. Gal 3:24-25 explains that the law was a tutor to bring us into full maturity of Christ. God's people were in infancy relative to God's complete redemption plan.
Some of the OT laws had a didactic use such as the separation laws that have already been mentioned (don't yoke oxen and asses; don't make garments with two types of fabric). These specific laws along with the moral laws had to do with Israel's role as a priesthood to all the nations.
Exodus 19:6
"and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."
And just like "don't touch knives" leads to a proper respect of things that can harm you, so to the law of Israel has a greater fulfillment for the people of God.
Paul refers to the commandment "Don't muzzle the ox" in order to teach that we should fairly pay people according to their labor they perform (1 Cor 9:9; 1 Tim 5:18).
Don't eat shellfish was used for a period of time to teach separation for Israel's priestly role. However, it has since been abrogated (Acts 10:11-14) to allow for the fullness of Gentiles.
And sometimes don't hit your sister means don't hit your sister.
So the only question remains, is God a trustworthy parent and not a republican.
@David: I just finished Leviticus tonight myself. I fell behind as the semester started for me, but now I'm all ready for Numbers. Can we get Bruce to just throw up a few posts to officially cover the rest of Leviticus and let the rest of us get on with Numbers? Watching the faithful twist and contort and assume willful ignorance regarding the modern implication of these laws is really, really tiresome. I don't need a silly imaginary sky spirit to tell me not to kill, sleep with my mother, or sell my brother into slavery when he loses his job. That's what Sophocles and Euripides are for.
ReplyDelete@Diomedes
ReplyDeleteGot started on Numbers myself. Anxious to hear Abbie's take on the whole magic adultery elixir thing in chapter 5 .... it's weird (sorta pagan witchcrafty weird). I'm having trouble finding much about it on the web (maybe because it's pagan and witchcrafty)
If anyone is wondering - 'witchcrafty' is a perfectly cromulent word.
Oooo - I found out more about the weird adultery ritual in Numbers 5 - it's call the ritual of Sotah. Here's more info:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotah
Has anyone tried e-mailing Bruce just to ask him to toss up the chapter assignments? I would be willing to do that if no one else has.
ReplyDeleteWhat about guest posters? Did Bruce ever work that out?
ReplyDelete