Leviticus?!

[patg]

bump

So what exactly then are these laws in relation to the salvation of Israel? Why does Moses make that claim that Yahweh has made laws pertaining to such small details like the above, “loss of hair”?
Why does Leviticus include laws on slaves? Why must a woman who intervenes a fight between two men via grabbing of the male testicles have her hand cut off? What are the purposes of these seemingly cold - hearted rules? Why does Leviticus even delve into these things?

Good question - kind of similar to why are Catholics today are condemned to eternal torture for eating meat on the wrong Friday or missing mass on Sunday or thinking women should be treated equally in the church hierarchy or having the wrong kind of sex…

The violation of these rules is NO MORE of an abomination to God than the prohibition against wearing clothes of blended fabrics or eating scallops were. It’s all about control and power - the rules have changed but the logic is the same. Jesus tried to fix it by saying “love God and love your neighbor” but His simple rules quickly became a thousand pages of catechism, thousands of pages of canon law, armies of canon lawyers, and hundreds of others trying to explain and enforce it all - kind of makes Leviticus look pretty simple in retrospect.

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

Good question - kind of similar to why are Catholics today are condemned to eternal torture for eating meat on the wrong Friday or missing mass on Sunday or thinking women should be treated equally in the church hierarchy or having the wrong kind of sex…

The violation of these rules is NO MORE of an abomination to God than the prohibition against wearing clothes of blended fabrics or eating scallops were. It’s all about control and power - the rules have changed but the logic is the same. Jesus tried to fix it by saying “love God and love your neighbor” but His simple rules quickly became a thousand pages of catechism, thousands of pages of canon law, armies of canon lawyers, and hundreds of others trying to explain and enforce it all - kind of makes Leviticus look pretty simple in retrospect.

Hang on to that thought. I recently had a class on ancient law, where, briefly mentioned, was the Bible, Leviticus in particular.

The lecturer, a Catholic himself (although a devout, faith teaching is not his greatest lightbulb ), said that it is possible to entertain the idea that Hebrew moral law and code were underdeveloped at that time. As time went on, moral law, eventually evolved and these practices were disregarded in the long run.

Even with that said, does that mean to say that this Hebrew law in Leviticus, which Moses claims to have sprung out from the mouth of Yahweh, is/ was incorrect and unevolved? Did God modify His laws over time?

 

[scottm]

I never got Leviticus until a priest who is a professor at a local university gave the sermon for the closing ceremony of my parish’s 40 hour devotion. He mentioned the animals and the shewbread and compared it to the Sacrifice of the Mass. He mentioned all the parallels, for instance the unblemished animals/Jesus being the perfect Sacrifice since He is God. The priest also compared Leviticus and Hebrews. It was one of the best sermon’s I have ever heard.

Aye, right on! Leviticus in a sense is the most important book in the Bible because it explains (1) the holiness of God moreso and better than any other part of the Bible, and (2) as a consequence of that, we learn why Jesus had to die for our sins.

You can’t get any more Christian than that! Dude!

 

[scottm]

So what exactly then are these laws in relation to the salvation of Israel? Why does Moses make that claim that Yahweh has made laws pertaining to such small details like the above, “loss of hair”?
Why does Leviticus include laws on slaves? Why must a woman who intervenes a fight between two men via grabbing of the male testicles have her hand cut off? What are the purposes of these seemingly cold - hearted rules? Why does Leviticus even delve into these things?

amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics/dp/0830815619/ref=sr_1_2/103-0573697-9495056?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188492732&sr=1-2

This book explains the trend of God’s moral laws from OT into NT. The authors make a compelling argument that God was pushing people in a consistent direction throughout history. It’s not that God ever changed his mind; it’s that people weren’t always ready to accept the best moral law. The rules that Moses did laid down were, in many cases, a radical improvement over the prevailing customs of neighboring countries. As time went on God pushed people again and again toward a better rule that did not contradict the prior rule but rather fulfilled the underlying principle.

You’re free to disagree with the authors’ conclusions regarding women as priests, but I think you’d find their discussion of slavery (it’s bad even though Jesus did not speak against it) and homosexuality (also bad even though “God is love”), and their overall approach to OT morality, quite enlightening.

 

[fellowChristian]

The way I understand it is this…

All first born sons belonged to God as His priests.

Exodus
Chapter 13:2

“Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, for it belongs to me.”

From the time of Adam= first born, father,priest.
**
Exodus**
Chapter 19
5
Therefore, if you hearken to my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my special possession, dearer to me than all other people, though all the earth is mine.
6
1 You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. That is what you must tell the Israelites."

Something happened to change that.

The people worshipped a calf.

Exodus
Chapter 32
1
When the people became aware of Moses’ delay in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said to him, “Come, make us a god who will be our leader; as for the man Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.”

No longer did God call them “my people”
10
Come, now! I will send you to Pharaoh to lead my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt."

Exodus
Chapter 32
7
With that, the LORD said to Moses, "Go down at once to your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, for they have become depraved.

When Moses came down and said:
Exodus
Chapter 32
26
he stood at the gate of the camp and cried, “Whoever is for the LORD, let him come to me!”** All the Levites then rallied to him,

** from that point only the Levites were God’s priests.

Numbers
Chapter 3
11
The LORD said to Moses,
12
"It is I who have chosen the Levites from the Israelites **in place of **every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites. The Levites, therefore, are mine,

So the Book of Leviticus is the laws for the priests. The Book of Numbers is because of the census Moses took of the Levites.

And from that point God put His priests between Him and His people.
Numbers
Chapter 3
10
But only Aaron and his descendants shall you appoint to have charge of the priestly functions. Any layman who comes near shall be put to death."

salvationhistory.com/online/Beginner/WalkGen.cfm

 

[Yerusalyim]

Leviticus does NOT apply anymore

This is quite INCORRECT. The Mosaic law found in the book of Leviticus is still A) God’s word, and B) God’s Laws…True, these laws to do not apply to CHRISTIANS…but the Jews are STILL God’s People, Still the people of the Covenant, and still bound in covenant to this law with every circumcision.

So, we have Leviticus because it’s God’s word, (scripture) God’s Law, still valid for the Jews, and it teaches we Christians about the Holiness of God…how unworthy we are of his love and forgiveness. What did Paul say? He didn’t know what coveting was until he read “YOU SHALL NOT COVET” and then rose up in him all sorts of covetous thoughts…the Law reveals Sin.

So, why cut off a woman’s had if she get’s between to males fighting and grabs his testicles…simply…PURITY WHy does it take the Ashes of a Red Hefer to Purify the temple precints…A) cuz Red Hefers were quite rate, and B) BECAUSE GOD SAID SO.

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

Hmm. This thread has received much comments since I was last here…

Alright I have taken many of your thoughts into consideration. Haven’t got much time now to analyze all of your responses but I’ll leave with this question/thought in mind:

• Leviticus seems to imply that God is evil (or rather not all - good) because the laws presented seem to contradict universal moral law. (and God is the Universal moral Law Legilator is He not?)

 

[patg]

Leviticus seems to imply that God is evil (or rather not all - good) because the laws presented seem to contradict universal moral law. (and God is the Universal moral Law Legilator is He not?)

It implies one of two things:

1. That someone was freely inserting laws and punishments into God’s mouth and didn’t exactly speak as God would have.

or

1. That God tried out some rules on the new experiment (humans) and found that many of the prohibitions weren’t such abominations after all. Jesus then came along to simpllify this obvious illogical mess with some pretty simple rules. Unfortunately, many are still trying to sort it all out and, as humans are naturally inclined to do, make up new (and in many cases) just as illogical rules to recomplicate it all.

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

It implies one of two things:

1. That someone was freely inserting laws and punishments into God’s mouth and didn’t exactly speak as God would have.

or

1. That God tried out some rules on the new experiment (humans) and found that many of the prohibitions weren’t such abominations after all. Jesus then came along to simpllify this obvious illogical mess with some pretty simple rules. Unfortunately, many are still trying to sort it all out and, as humans are naturally inclined to do, make up new (and in many cases) just as illogical rules to recomplicate it all.

But by virtue of logic…

• If the Bible is TRULY infallible, then statement 1 cannot be a proper premise. The Bible then, is NOT divinely inspired.
• Statement 2 negates the existence of God (indirectly) for it implies that God is bound by time and Infinite Truth, alterable. Yet, as an ALL Perfect Being, God is truly unalterable and perfectly free and boundless.

Some major link to the puzzle of Leviticus is largely missing…​

I have read some of the other replies and read the links. However, the answer to the question, that is, how an all just God gives seemingly “morally unevolved” laws to the Hebrews is largely, as yet, unjustified. If God is all just, there must be a very wise reasoning behind each law, however, odd and crude it seems. (Unless these laws are not meant to be taken literally. )

 

[patg]

If the Bible is TRULY infallible, then statement 1 cannot be a proper premise. The Bible then, is NOT divinely inspired.

The church does not teach that the bible is “infallible” - it is clearly full of errors in regards to history, science, biology, etc. Divine inspiration relates to the bible presenting the truths of God’s revelation as it pertains to human salvation. You should read “Biblical Fundamentalism - What Every Catholic Should Know” by Ronald Witherup. It contains some clear discussion on this issue.

Statement 2 negates the existence of God (indirectly) for it implies that God is bound by time and Infinite Truth, alterable. Yet, as an ALL Perfect Being, God is truly unalterable and perfectly free and boundless.

Or that the human definition of God as “truly unalterable and perfectly free and boundless” is not quite correct. There is no proof of or way of determining the truth of this definition. There is also no natural logical reason as to why eating a scallop or a rare steak would be an abomination to God (or anyone else).

Another way to look at it is by comparing God to a perfect parent - a perfect parent will make rules and laws that are very different depending on the age and understanding of their child.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So what is the use of Biblical book, Leviticus for Catholics?

The text has another purpose for Jews in their Torah. But what is the purpose of Leviticus for Catholics?

It’s immensely valuable, because it has so much to say about the OT sacrificial economy. As Jesus Christ is our High Priest, as we are priests in Him, as He is the Atoning Victim through Whom we have peace with the Father, as the Church’s supreme rite of worship is His Sacrifice, we already have four good reasons to be very interested in the book.​

It is also important because of the “Holiness Code” in it: God’s People - including His priests - are to be holy, because God is Holy; so He requires holiness in those whom He has chosen to be His. That is why there are all those detailed lists of impurities to avoid, and why 19.18 says what it does:

• Lev 19:17 "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him.
• Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

 

[Spirithound]

However, what is the implication behind each of these laws then if they reflect Hebrew society? What is God’s special purpose/ intent in making laws? Why is there that NEED to delve into such small details such as Loss of Hair (Leviticus 13:40 - 46)?

The church does not teach that the bible is “infallible” - it is clearly full of errors in regards to history, science, biology, etc.

There is also no natural logical reason as to why eating a scallop or a rare steak would be an abomination to God (or anyone else).

I believe that every law that God gave and gives now, has a purpose that can be reflected in the “secular” consequences of the action. For example, scallops and rare steaks, for the ancient Jews, before the time of refrigerators, was really really dangerous. The Hebrews wouldn’t have understood a divine microbiology lesson, and so it was an abomination. Similarly, Patg, homosexuality is an abomination because (among other things), anal sex increases the risk of anal cancer.
GuanYu, have you read Lev. 13:40-46? It’s not about hair loss, but rather leprosy. In 2 consecutive verses there, a bald man is declared clean!

 

[patg]

I believe that every law that God gave and gives now, has a purpose that can be reflected in the “secular” consequences of the action.

That may be a good way to rationalize our way out of being cafeteria catholics today BUT every time we sit down in our cotton blend clothes and eat a lobster with several vegetables grown in the same garden plot we are directly disobeying at least three explicit commandments from God. That doesn’t bother me (for a number of reasons) but those here who are constantly preaching on the absolute unchanging perfect nature of God and truth and morality look a little weak at times. It is one thing to pick and choose the laws of the chuch one thinks make sense but to deliberately rationalize your way out of obeying God’s explicit laws makes me wonder who is at the front of the cafeteria line (and I am usually in the line).

 

[lak611]

That may be a good way to rationalize our way out of being cafeteria catholics today BUT every time we sit down in our cotton blend clothes and eat a lobster with several vegetables grown in the same garden plot we are directly disobeying at least three explicit commandments from God. That doesn’t bother me (for a number of reasons) but those here who are constantly preaching on the absolute unchanging perfect nature of God and truth and morality look a little weak at times. It is one thing to pick and choose the laws of the chuch one thinks make sense but to deliberately rationalize your way out of obeying God’s explicit laws makes me wonder who is at the front of the cafeteria line (and I am usually in the line).

Dietary laws no longer apply to Christians. From the D-R:

Act 10:9 And on the next day, whilst they were going on their journey and drawing nigh to the city, Peter went up to the higher parts of the house to pray, about the sixth hour.
Act 10:10 And being hungry, he was desirous to taste somewhat. And as they were preparing, there came upon him an ecstasy of mind.
Act 10:11 And he saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth:
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts and creeping things of the earth and fowls of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him: Arise, Peter. Kill and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said: Far be it from me. For I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common.
Act 10:16 And this was done thrice. And presently the vessel was taken up into heaven.

 

[patg]

Dietary laws no longer apply to Christians. From the D-R:

Oh, I agree! I fully appreciate the fact that there is a symbolic passage in which God changes his mind and voids ***some ***of the strict moral codes which He explicitly established. It’s funny how abominations can come and go, isn’t it?

You still better be careful with that cotton blend shirt you have on while eating that juicy steak tonight…

 

[ryanoneil]

salvationhistory.com/online/intermediate/class1_lesson4_3.cfm

Here is a teaser from a lesson I really enjoyed

The sacrificial system is imposed as a kind of corporate penance upon the whole nation. The three animals that God had Israel sacrifice - cattle, sheep and goats - were all venerated as divine by the Egyptians.

God was dealing with Israel as if the people were addicted to idolatry. As we’ve seen, it was easier to take Israel out of Egypt than to take Egypt out of Israel.

The animal sacrifice requirements would be a daily reminder of their apostasy with the golden calf. Each day they would be forced to relive their sin and do penance for it, ritually slaughtering the “gods” they once worshipped. In this way, God hoped to free Israel’s heart from slavery to idolatry (see Joshua 24:14; Ezekiel 20:7-8; Acts 7:39-41).

 

[Spirithound]

It is one thing to pick and choose the laws of the chuch one thinks make sense but to deliberately rationalize your way out of obeying God’s explicit laws makes me wonder who is at the front of the cafeteria line (and I am usually in the line).

When I’m in that line-up for the spiritual food, I let the Pope order for me.