Is the book of Leviticus legitimate?

[Tis_Bearself]

If both people are unmarried can adultery still be used?

It’s called “fornication” in that case, and the Sixth Commandment is understood to cover all forms of impurity including masturbation which doesn’t even involve another person.

 

[twf]

According to current Church teaching such a practice would be condemned today… the old Law was imperfect. The Gospel fulfills and perfects the Old Law, and as Pope Francis recently reminded us, it is only in relatively recent times that the Church has come to fully comprehend the implications of the Gospel in regards to slavery and the death penalty.

 

[whyeyeman]

Of course I think that slavery is abhorrent. But that doesn’t mean it’s inherently wrong. Do you deny that God condoned slavery in the OT?

 

[twf]

No, but God also condoned divorce… the Lord Himself says in the Gospel that this was only due to the “hardness of their hearts”. Divorce is wrong. Slavery is wrong. God condoned both as the Old Law was imperfect…God meets man where he is.

 

[whyeyeman]

Nonsense. Morality is absolute. If God says that something in the old Law concerning morality, that still applies today. God condoned the death penalty for certain circumstances specific to that day, and therefore it cannot be said that the death penalty is immoral.

 

[whyeyeman]

Is divorce inherently wrong? Or was it the moral thing to do, under the circumstances of the old law, when marriage was not yet a sacrament?

 

[Mintaka]

Even under the old law, people knew that divorce was not as good as staying married. Similarly, the Bible consistently implies that although the patriarchs practiced polygamy, it always led to trouble.

 

[twf]

The Old Testament says elsewhere, I think it’s in Malachi, that God “hates” divorce. That sounds pretty immoral to me. Yet the law condoned it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

No. The circumstances are not the same. Every country in the world was pagan except Israel back then. Hence why I asked about punishment for crimes.

Also, notice that in the verse it says “You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly”. Today, under the new covenant, the entire world is “Israel”.

The fact that God allowed his people to act more cruelly to those that weren’t his people is not a defense of how slavery is right. To be good means to be good to all, not just those who check some of the same boxes in the census. I specifically wrote “more cruelly” in the first sentence, since the guidelines God gave in the Bible on how to treat Hebrew slaves were still terrible.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

According to current Church teaching such a practice would be condemned today… the old Law was imperfect. The Gospel fulfills and perfects the Old Law, and as Pope Francis recently reminded us, it is only in relatively recent times that the Church has come to fully comprehend the implications of the Gospel in regards to slavery and the death penalty.

To say that the old law was imperfect and that later it was “fulfilled” and “prefected” suggests that while the old law had flaws it was pointing in the right direction. Yet what we have is the old law (with regards to slavery) being completely overturned – a complete 180 degrees. It wasn’t “imperfect” about slavery. It was flat-out wrong. Not only that but you say the new law (the Gospel) fulfilled the old law, except a proper understanding of slavery didn’t come about due to the Gospel. It took 19 centuries after the Gospel for the faith to be on the right side against slavery.

The Old Testament says elsewhere, I think it’s in Malachi, that God “hates” divorce. That sounds pretty immoral to me. Yet the law condoned it.

It’s notable that there is no such similar passage regarding slavery. If God was against slavery he wouldn’t have given detailed instructions on how to perform it. He wouldn’t have told his people how to perform cruel acts within the institution of slavery. He wouldn’t have told his people how to expand the practice.

Also let’s consider when God gave his instructions to his people regarding slavery. They had been enslaved by the Egyptians for 430 years. They had gone generations without ever owning slaves. They later escaped and were wandering the desert, still without slaves. It was at this point in Exodus 21 that God gave his people the go-ahead to obtain slaves and misuse them. Compare that with divorce, where as long as people get married there will be some who later wish to become unmarried. Divorce and slavery are two very different beasts.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Wait, but isn’t adultery between a married person and someone’s husband/wife or a married person and an unmarried man/woman?

If both people are unmarried can adultery still be used?

The definition of adultery, according to the original Jewish Halacha, (which is where the 10 commandments came from, of course), is that a man (single or married) cannot have relations with a married woman - she officially is the property of another man. It’s a question of taking something or someone who is not yours to have. I believe the Catholic Church has changed the original meaning.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Similarly, the Bible consistently implies that although the patriarchs practiced polygamy, it always led to trouble.

Goodness, where did you get that idea?

 

[twf]

Certainly Christian societies appealed to Christian virtue when working to abolish slavery in the 19th century. As Pope Francis recently taught, there was development of doctrine at play here. The Gospel contains the fullness of truth but the Church’s understanding of the Gospel has deepened over time.
I don’t believe that God commanded or instituted slavery in a culture that previously had no slavery. I believe slavery was already present and accepted and God met His people where they were. I do accept the Exodus, but not necessarily the received text as an exact historical account of how things went down. It’s true that there is no verse that specifically says that God hates slavery, but you often find the general sentiment of protecting the weak and the poor…slavery was never an ideal. It was as always a result of sin… as is divorce. (Though you’re right that they’re “different beasts”).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Goodness, where did you get that idea?

The Bible stories such as Abraham, Sarah and Hagar (involving jealousy between the women), and Jacob, Rachel and Leah (involving jealousy between the women and later between their offspring), and David and his many wives including one that he coveted and took from another man (David’s kids later act in a dysfunctional way with children of one mom committing violence on their half-siblings), and Solomon and his many wives who turned his heart from the Lord, etc. definitely do NOT portray polygamy in a happy and productive light.

Do you have a Bible citation showing otherwise? Or were you being sarcastic?

 

[josh987654321]

Ok. So when a friend of mine says that we don’t follow the Levitical law against Homosexual acts, I could reply that Homosexual acts are adultery because it’s sexually immoral and outside the sacrament of marriage?

The question I believe will be put exactly as @Mike_from_NJ put it, and it’s designed to take the Old Testament in isolation from the New Testament in order to accuse us of hypocrisy or picking and choosing, which is not true.

I would respond as I did to him, when Leviticus calls for the death penalty for sodomy, it also calls for it in regards to adultery, but then we have the New Testament with Christ who said He didn’t come to do away with the Old Testament, but to fulfill it, and then when the woman is caught in adultery, He says ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’, and that He wont condemn her to death either, but to go and sin no more, and it’s the same with the sin of sodomy.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Certainly Christian societies appealed to Christian virtue when working to abolish slavery in the 19th century. As Pope Francis recently taught, there was development of doctrine at play here. The Gospel contains the fullness of truth but the Church’s understanding of the Gospel has deepened over time.

While there were Christians who fought to abolish slavery (both Catholic and non-Catholic) they had to combat the Church’s outright endorsement of slavery (as I detailed above) and the words of God himself giving explicit details on how to increase slavery in the world. You say the Gospel contains the fullness of truth, as though it shows God against slavery, but there is not a single word in the Gospel saying slavery is wrong. To call it a development of doctrine or a fulfilling of truth would suggest that Christianity was at least partway against slavery, but without a doubt that is simply untrue. Doctrine has flipped 180 degrees on slavery. That’s not a “development”. That’s an overturning. The abolishment of slavery owes FAR more to the Elightenment than any church that has been on the side of slavery for NINETEEN centuries (95% of its existence).

I don’t believe that God commanded or instituted slavery in a culture that previously had no slavery. I believe slavery was already present and accepted and God met His people where they were. I do accept the Exodus, but not necessarily the received text as an exact historical account of how things went down.

The Catechism says that all scripture is true, whether literally or figuratively. So even if you say God didn’t literally speak to his people on these matters, it does mean that if scripture says God is for something then he is for something.

If you’re saying that the Exodus was true, but that they were practicing slavery… then how is that possible? Slaves don’t have slaves. God introducing his slavery rules to the Hebrews in the desert means that they had no opportunity to obtain slaves between crossing the Red Sea to the speech starting in Exodus 20.

It’s important to note that Exodus 21, which contains a large portion of God’s rules and regulations on being a slaveowner is in the same monologue where God allegedly first gave the 10 Commmandments. If you want to discount one part of it then you have to allow the other parts to be discounted as well.

It’s true that there is no verse that specifically says that God hates slavery, but you often find the general sentiment of protecting the weak and the poor…slavery was never an ideal. It was as always a result of sin… as is divorce. (Though you’re right that they’re “different beasts”).

You can’t have numerous passages of God specifically outlieing how to do all sorts of utterly cruel things to slaves (including God in Leviticus on purchasing slaves from neighboring nations) then play it off as God not wanting his people to do the very things he told them they could do. It simply doesn’t add up. You can discard the specific words of God because they would paint him in an awful light.

 

[twf]

In the case of the Catholic Church, I still say it was a gradual development. No, the texts of the New Testament don’t condemn slavery, but St Paul does urge masters to treat their slaves as brothers, emphasizing their dignity as children of God. There was definitely a development from the Old Testament texts. Looking at Church history I don’t see a 180. Take Pope Paul III who condemned the enslavement of indigenous peoples in the 16th century. There are other examples.
When we say slavery is opposed by the Gospel, we mean the spirit of the Gospel, not a particular text…and that is an example of development of our understanding of the implications of that spirit over the centuries.
Regarding the Exodus, I accept that the historical event may have been more complex than the Scriptural account. I believe there were Hebrew slaves who came out of Egypt, but the community that became Israel may have drawn from other “sources” before becoming the nation we see recorded in Scripture…including peoples who already had slaves.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

In the case of the Catholic Church, I still say it was a gradual development. No, the texts of the New Testament don’t condemn slavery, but St Paul does urge masters to treat their slaves as brothers, emphasizing their dignity as children of God.

There is a wide gap between asking a slaveowner to be nice to his slave and saying it is wrong to hurt slaves. God himself has a few vagueries about being nice to slaves, but also in very specific terms says they can be beaten to death (Exodus 21:20-21).

There was definitely a development from the Old Testament texts. Looking at Church history I don’t see a 180. Take Pope Paul III who condemned the enslavement of indigenous peoples in the 16th century. There are other examples.

I’m assuming you’re refering to Sublimus Dei, which Pope Paul repealed a year later at the behest of the crown of Spain. It’s not a development against slavery if it’s retracted. It is accurate to call it a development in capitualtion. Also Pope Paul rescinded the long-standing practice of slaves being allowed to gain their freedom under the Emperor’s statue. He also affirmed the right for the people of Rome to purchase male and female slaves.

When we say slavery is opposed by the Gospel, we mean the spirit of the Gospel, not a particular text…and that is an example of development of our understanding of the implications of that spirit over the centuries.

So not in what it says or implies, but what people two millennia later would like it to have meant. It’s not particularly convincing and it would have to be to overcome the many words of God himself endorsing slavery.

Regarding the Exodus, I accept that the historical event may have been more complex than the Scriptural account. I believe there were Hebrew slaves who came out of Egypt, but the community that became Israel may have drawn from other “sources” before becoming the nation we see recorded in Scripture…including peoples who already had slaves.

That would be adding to scrupture. Nowhere does it say that others joined in with those who fleed Egypt after 430 years of captivity (and thus weren’t alive when the Hebrews last owned slaves). More important than that, Leviticus has God specifically telling his people that even though those of other nations do certain things that is not a reason to do it:

Leviticus 18:3:

“You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.”

Leviticus 20:23:

“You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.”

In multiple passages he tells his people to do things that most if not all of the other nations were not doing and vice versa. He told them what to eat & wear, when to work & rest, how to marry & raise children. He held sway on so much of their lives, but somehow God simply had to allow for slavery and hope thousands of years later that this would change.

 

[Mintaka]

If you read all the books together, you will see that the Law was set forth by God to deal with Israel’s sins and bad behavior, not as an example of how He wanted to govern His people originally.

The first version of the Law was just stuff commanded that was simple, meant to keep Israel from doing pagan Egyptian things. But Moses didn’t even get to bring that down the mountain before Israel sinned against that stuff.

The original idea was that Israel’s firstborns would act as priests for their own households. Israel sinned and worshiped the golden calf, right at Mount Sinai. So God had Moses and the faithful Israelites punish the unfaithful ones. The Levites became the priests for everyone. Cue a lot of laws about the new version of the priesthood.

Then later, Israel sinned at Baal-Peor, worshipping more pagan gods and engaging in more religio-sexual parties. And God lowered the boom with even more restrictive laws.

Finally, there were laws created by Moses and the elders, some of which were just normal human laws, and some of which were given “because of the hardness of their hearts.” Moses and the elders knew that the Israelites were going to do bad stuff like divorce their wives, so they made an attempt to keep things a little bit more fair.

St. Paul talks a lot about this. His general idea is that God put up with unfair human laws in order to let people with hard hearts destroy themselves with sin, much like Pharaoh was allowed to keep being nasty until he destroyed himself.

So there is a fair amount of question as to where the laws for debt slavery and enslaving people in war actually fall. Is it in the laws that God put down as a punishment and school? Or is it in the laws from Moses and other humans? The answer seems to be a little of both.

What also seems clear is that slavery doesn’t turn out well for those who enslave others. Biblical stories seem to be on the side of the slaves, not the masters. Slavery is never shown as something good or natural.