Looking for repute to apparent unreasonable and immoral "laws" in Leviticus

[Mijoy2]

Just as the title says. Can anyone suggest a document, book, whatever, that explains what maybe reasonably perceived as the unreasonable and apparently /unjust/harsh laws in the book of Leviticus?

Issues such as slavery, stoning individuals for certain behaviors etc.

I consider myself a pretty good googler , but I am coming up short in this regard. Any and all recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

What is our best defense against these allegations?

 

[WesleyF]

I had listened to one of Dr. Scott Hahn’s talks in the Our Father’s Plan series. Here are some notes I made from talk number 5. They might help answer your question. You can download all the talks from the link below. Listen to talk number 5 in particular.

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-306548622

Notes-

Deuteronomy is not merely a repetition of the law, it is as the name implies, a second law.

Deuteros = second
nomos = (word for) law

40 years earlier, at the covenant at Sinia, God came in thunder and lightning and fire. Deuteronomy is made, without any kind of manifestation of God’s presence.

The Deuteronomy covenant, is a long oration given by Moses on the plains of Moab. This covenant, is made by Moses on God’s behalf, instead of God himself.

God the Father has to now take on the role of a master, whereas Israel is now like a slave.

In Deuteronomy, there are some distinctive laws.
Deut 29:1

In Deuteronomy, you see certain concessions being made, although not directly by God. God allows Moses to become the primary law-giver.

The wise and prudent law giver has to assess the moral condition of the people, so that he doesn’t erect a legal standard impossibly high. - St. Thomas Aquinas

So Moses starts to tolerate certain evils that were not tolerated before. Deut 24:1-4, Moses (not God) allows divorce (you know what Jesus said). You can charge interest from Gentiles.

So Deuteronomy is isolationist, it isolates Israel from the Gentiles. God sees that Israel is more tempted to be like the nations than the nations are drawn to be like Israel.

You also see permanent slavery instituted. You also see Moses allowing polygamy and also marrying foreign wives. Harem warfare – slaughter Caananite men and women. This is not what God says. This is what Moses** concedes**!

Deut 12:15 – another distinctive law.

The central sanctuary – the focal point of all of ancient Israel’s subsequent history.

Only in Deut 17, does Moses give permission to have a secular king. It can’t be a foreigner.

Deut 27-34 – an ominous note. It’s no longer, “if” you disobey. Israel comes under a curse. The curses are elaborated in excruciating detail in chapter 28. In chapter 29, Moses tells the reason why the curses are going to fall. The Israelites don’t have a heart for God, because they have not sought it! They don’t have in themselves to keep the law and attain holiness.

When you are exiled and call to God, God will circumcize your hearts.

In Deut 10 – circumcize your own hearts.
In Deut 30 – (at that time) I will circumcize your hearts.

The law was given to Israel by God, so that they would seek grace. The law was given so that grace might be sought. Then grace is given, so that the law might finally be obeyed. - St. Augustine.

When Paul says the law is dismissed, he is referring to those that came after the golden calf and Baal of Peor. Those are the laws which the council in Acts 15 dispensed Christians from.

Ezekiel 20:18-26

Deuteronomy is a self-retiring covenant that makes way for the new covenant.

Grace does not make law keeping easy. Grace makes it possible!

 

[Mijoy2]

This is very good, thank you. I have heard this before and could not recall from where.

I am more concerned with some of the “reasons” for some of the laws (reasons that are not apparent). i.e. some of the food laws, such as not eating shell-fish. Some of the cleanliness laws such a woman during her “time” being considered “unclean” and being forbidden certain priveliges as a result.

How are these (seemingly unreasonable) laws explained? Or are they?

 

[bmullins]

A lot of it is just something you can run through mentally to figure out. For instance menstruation. Men were also unclean if they had a nocturnal emission. The Jewish people believed that if something came out of your ‘privates’ that could make you unclean. So a woman who had matter and blood coming from that region of her body was removed from areas so she didn’t make them ‘unclean.’ They believed that it would make anything the blood touched ritually unclean, and then anyone touching that item would then become unclean as well.

 

[Mijoy2]

A lot of it is just something you can run through mentally to figure out. For instance menstruation. Men were also unclean if they had a nocturnal emission. The Jewish people believed that if something came out of your ‘privates’ that could make you unclean. So a woman who had matter and blood coming from that region of her body was removed from areas so she didn’t make them ‘unclean.’ They believed that it would make anything the blood touched ritually unclean, and then anyone touching that item would then become unclean as well.

Thanks, yes, but I am attempting to find the logic in it. In other words, where these laws came fro mGod, (or at least were endorsed by God, having come from Moses), the implication is they are reasonable. There is a reasonable explaination for them. Given the example above, how would we define “unclean”? Where is the reason? I ponder.

 

[Mijoy2]

Many many hours with no answers to this. I must ask why. 272 views and 2 responses. Nearly 1 in 200 people who viewed could even attampt an answer to the quesiton we very often have thrown in our face… This is telling. We pride ourselves with using the natural law, scripture and tradition to explain our unpopular stance on things such as homosexuality, pro-life issues, the sanctity of marriage etc etc. yet we cannot seem to explain God’s Law as it relates to the Old Testament.

Well these are the things the oposition throws at us.

i.e. A women who is menstrating are “unclean”
eating shell fish is unclean
no apparent problem with slave ownership
much much much more

Yet we cannot look them in the eye and expalin these things? Then of what footing do we have.

I came here for support. Nothing comes of it. Are we, hypocrates?

Thanks

 

[Mijoy2]

Many many hours with no answers to this. I must ask why. 272 views and 2 responses. Nearly 1 in 200 people who viewed could even attampt an answer to the quesiton we very often have thrown in our face… This is telling. We pride ourselves with using the natural law, scripture and tradition to explain our unpopular stance on things such as homosexuality, pro-life issues, the sanctity of marriage etc etc. yet we cannot seem to explain God’s Law as it relates to the Old Testament.

Well these are the things the oposition throws at us.

i.e. A women who is menstrating are “unclean”
eating shell fish is unclean
no apparent problem with slave ownership
much much much more

Yet we cannot look them in the eye and expalin these things? Then of what footing do we have.

I came here for support. Nothing comes of it. Are we, hypocrates?

Thanks

Okay, if nobody has an answer, can I at least get anyone else to comment on whether or not they find that we as catholics cannot answer this question, troubling?

One answer I’d like to avoid (with all due respect…because it is really not an answer to the logical side of the question) if possible is the answer “Because God said so”.

Again, thanks in advance

 

[steve9191]

I have written a book that is currently being shopped. It is called the Theology of the Salt. In it I discuss the much deeper meaning of salt in Scripture—and there is a much deeper meaning. It’s about 114,000 words, so you can imagine that I can’t even begin to back up the assertions that I am making here—you’ll have to buy the book:shrug:. Much of the book provides detailed answers to what you are looking for. I will try to give a very brief answer to your question.

God gave us a body to be the “mouth” for the overflow of our inner hearts. To accomplish this, God designed our bodies to change (for better or worse) right down to the molecular level so that it would “accurately” express that overflow. In the New Covenant, our hearts are purified and our body changes in order to accurately express its overflow. This inner purification is accomplished through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, given to us through union with the resurrected (re-built) Temple–Jesus.

In the Old Testament, there was no such indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Thus purification of the heart had to be accomplished from the outside (the flesh) to the inside (the heart). In a sense, the Jews had to die to the flesh to accomplish (with very limited success in most cases) the purification of the heart. Remember that the whole purpose of the covenant that God made with Abraham was to bring the Redeemer into the world from his seed. It is my contention that the “job” of the “Chosen People” was to maintain the purity of the seed from which Jesus would come. This is evident by the very sign used to signify the covenant—circumcision.

Science has shown that it is now an undeniable fact that man’s DNA changes on a molecular and quantum level as a result of exposure to environment, food, and behavior (ours and others). Science has further shown that these changes (for better or worse) can have an impact on others—right down to the molecular and quantum levels. This is why God gave the Israelites harsh Laws, dealt severe penalties for failing to follow them, and required segregation of the Jews from all other peoples. The purity of the seed from which Jesus’ DNA would come had to be maintained—or no Savior.

 

[Incomplete]

Okay, if nobody has an answer, can I at least get anyone else to comment on whether or not they find that we as catholics cannot answer this question, troubling?

One answer I’d like to avoid (with all due respect…because it is really not an answer to the logical side of the question) if possible is the answer “Because God said so”.

Again, thanks in advance

For me, I don’t find it troubling…because my priest has explained this, but I just don’t remember enough to make sure I give you accurate information. It was awhile ago. It made sense at the time, so I don’t really worry about it.

The thing you said about wondering why things like menstruation vs stoning is maybe because of a misunderstanding of being unclean. To be unclean was to be ritually unclean. It did not mean you were a bad person. To my understanding, it had to do more with things like entering the Tabernacle (though there is probably more to it than that.) But to be ritually unclean did not mean to sin.

And it had to do with the reality that things were categorized in Jewish society, and there were things considered, for lack of a better word (though this isn’t exactly the right word, but the best I can do) “ordered” or not, meaning in the order of things.

So, for example, menstruation or any discharge…bodily fluids were supposed to be in the body. When they came out of the body, that was not where it belonged, so it was unclean.

Animals, too, had certain categories. So water animals had to have, I think, fins and scales. Anything else was dis-ordered, or in other words, didn’t neatly fit the category, so it was called unclean.

A lot of things in Leviticus applied to priests, who were the ones to make sacrifices. And all in all, the laws of cleanliness and uncleanliness set Israel, God’s chosen people, apart from the rest. So whether setting the nation apart or the priesthood, there was a reason for it.

It’s the best I can do. I just can’t remember everything my priest said. I hope it is helpful.

 

[Hokomai]

By far the best and simplest explanation is that, alternately: there is not God, OR, there is a God and he did not inspire the weird things in the books you mention OR, there is a God, but he is not good, or at least not sensible or sane. Any other explanations require lots of line dancing on the heads of pins with whole choirs of angels.

 

[steve9191]

By far the best and simplest explanation…Any other explanations require lots of line dancing on the heads of pins with whole choirs of angels.

If you really believe that, I find myself wondering what you motive is for being on this forum. Why are you? As to the last sentence, I don’t even understand the point you are trying to make.

 

[Hokomai]

If you really believe that, I find myself wondering what you motive is for being on this forum. Why are you? As to the last sentence, I don’t even understand the point you are trying to make.

I am here because I have been made welcome as an unbeliever, for which I am grateful. I am interested in the nature of belief, and why people believe. One of the things which interests me the most is how people can equate the concept of an all-loving God with the inspiration for the strange rules in the OT and in turn equate this being with the Jesus of the beatitudes. Hence my challenge in my post. My last sentence is a reference to the idea of counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I used it, by analogy, to describe the complexity of other explanations of OT rules compared with the simplicity of the options I put forward. I hope that explains why I am here and my post.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Please remain on topic and do not question the motivations of other members.

 

[markomalley]

Just as the title says. Can anyone suggest a document, book, whatever, that explains what maybe reasonably perceived as the unreasonable and apparently /unjust/harsh laws in the book of Leviticus?

Issues such as slavery, stoning individuals for certain behaviors etc.

I consider myself a pretty good googler , but I am coming up short in this regard. Any and all recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

What is our best defense against these allegations?

People look at things through our filter of modernity. Consider viewing these laws through the filter of the world at that time. For example, yes, there was slavery…but were those laws actually a reform of the institution that existed in those days? (In other words, compare it to how slavery ran elsewhere at the time)