I have received your “questions” forwarded to me by a mutual friend, who asked if I would respond to them. While I doubt that you really were seeking answers, but rather, simply trying to make a cynical statement, I will treat the points of your letter as if it was written in sincerity. You wrote:
Your "friend" must get around! The list of questions he has asked you seems to pop up everywhere! Did he post them on the Internet, by any chance? I notice that all of his "questions" are taken from the books of Exodus and Leviticus—books of Hebrew law that stand as the foundation of the legal codes of Great Britain and America. It is a sad commentary on today's law training that a degree in law no longer equips a man to understand the laws (i.e., those in the Bible) that are the foundation of both British Common Law and of the American legal system. The American lawyer-turned-evangelist in the 19th century, Charles Finney, was converted to Christianity through the study of law. He kept noticing that "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law" (the standard authority on British and American law at the time) continually referred him back to the Bible to clarify or illustrate legal principles. Finney decided that he ought to read the Bible, in order better to understand his professional field, and ended up becoming a Christian.A Bible-reading friend has posed some interesting questions, and has asked for some advice on interpretation. I am (was) a lawyer, not a theologian, so I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.
In the end of your letter, you wrote: “Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.” Your confusion on every point raised in your letter arises from your mistaken premise that the word of God is in every sense unchanging. The word of God is never invalidated, but it undergoes fulfillment. That is why Jesus said, “I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” When a child becomes a man, the child has not been invalidated or destroyed. He has simply reached maturity. The Bible teaches that the ritual temple laws of Judaism were like an instructor to humanity in its childhood, being needed until the arrival of maturity (that is, the appearance of Jesus Christ in history). Until Christ came, the Jews were given instructive rituals to perform that anticipated their fulfillment in the Messiah. When he actually arrived, the anticipatory rituals were replaced by the anticipated reality. “When I became a man, I put away childish things.” The coming of the New Order in Christ has definitely brought a change in the laws of the Old Order (“For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law”—Heb.7:12), but the change is one that the Old Order anticipated from the beginning (Rom.3:21).
Of course, people who have no genuine interest in understanding God’s concerns will forever seek for ways to misunderstand the Bible, and will not even discern their own transparent hypocrisy in extrapolating from the acknowledged repealing of the ritual laws a corresponding repeal of ALL biblical laws, including those that define moral absolutes.
While those laws governing temple rituals were provisional and temporary, God’s moral absolutes do not change, for the simple reason that they are the mere reflection of the character of One who Himself never changes (Mal.3:6).
All of your “questions” are easily answered once this principle is recognized, so that I am glad to respond to each one individually, even though I do not have the advantage of a legal education.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
Your mockery of the King James English (in using the archaic word spellings) does not testify to sincerity on your part, but merely a desire to make fun of the Bible. The Bible’s veracity can hardly be impugned on the mere basis that it was first translated into English at a time when English words were spelled differently than they presently are. If you are not mature enough to get around the old English without offense, you should be informed that modern English translations are available where the words are spelled just as you would normally spell them.
The system of animal sacrifices is one of the many rituals that has, according to Christianity, become obsolete, since those sacrifices were intended to foreshadow the offering of Christ as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the world. In the Old Testament, when these things were still being practiced, the sacrifices were offered by priests at a temple site, not in every man’s back yard. I do not know whether neighbors complained about the smoke. Do your neighbors actually complain about the smell when you have a barbecue? Are they vegetarians or something?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I suspect that it is slavery itself that you are actually objecting to. It is an evidence of our cultural provincialism that we find slavery itself (as opposed to the abuse that sometimes accompanied slavery) objectionable. Every society in the world (until about a century ago) had slavery as a feature of its economic life, and many countries (Muslim and African nations) still allow trading in slaves. It was the Christian conscience of western civilization that eventually led to the abolition of slavery here so recently. In ancient Israel, as in other nations, some people became so poor that they had nothing left to barter for food or for the repayment of debts except their children’s or their own freedom. The laws of Israel, however, unlike those of many nations, did not allow an Israelite to be held involuntarily as the property of another for longer than seven years. “Slavery” was thus more like a case of indentured servitude. Though it was indeed lawful to keep foreign slaves (who were generally captives taken in battle) for longer periods, the laws insisted upon just and humane treatment of the slaves, in contrast to that which the laws of other nations allowed. I hope you may not fall upon such hard times financially as to need to sell members of your family into servitude. If you do, you may wish to consult your nearest Sudanese slave merchant as to the going rates.
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell ? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
It is not clear why you would find it necessary to have physical contact with any woman other than your wife. I would be surprised if your wife never lets you know when she is having her period. How does she conceal this from you?
4. Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
If it were legal, and if Canadians or Mexicans were taken as prisoners of war, then it would be as “kosher” for you to own them as slaves as to own those of any other nation. Likewise, it would be equally ethical for them to own you, if the tables were to be turned.
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
The observance of the Sabbath was required of the people of Israel as an evidence of their special covenantal status as a nation chosen by God (Ex.31:16-17). America does not bear such a status with God, and thus is under no obligation to legislate Sabbath observance, or to punish Sabbath-breakers. Relax.
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Fortunately, the laws restricting the eating of certain foods, being rituals associated with temple cleanness, are no longer applicable, since all such temple ritual passed away along with the temple itself in 70 AD, and will never return. Both Jesus (Mark 7:18-19) and Paul (Col.2:16-17/1 Tim.4:4-5) tell us that what we eat is not a matter of importance to God any longer (and never was an issue for Gentiles nations, anyway).
Homosexuality, for obvious reasons, is an issue of a different order. Oh, the reasons are not obvious? I forgot, we moderns have forgotten the difference between normative and aberrant sexuality. Here is a refresher course: The Bible tells us that God created sexuality for the purpose of procreation in heterosexual couples bound to each other for life in a covenant relationship (Gen.1:27-28; 2:24/ Mal.2:15). All sexual behavior that does not conform to this norm (e.g., premarital or extramarital sex, sodomy, beastiality, etc.) is a violation of God’s design and of his commands. Such deviancy is a moral disorder.
I am sure, for example, that you would consider it a moral disorder if the lady next door were to engage in a sexual relationship with her own grandson, or if your neighbor’s daughter were to engage in the same with the family pet (If these cases would not seem immoral to you, perhaps the gang-raping of your own daughter by thirty Hell’s Angels would awaken your moral senses). There are certain sexual behaviors that everybody recognizes as immoral. Since there must be some proper place to draw the line in such matters, we Christians feel that God’s word is a higher authority than is that of a subjective, sex-crazed, self-justifying society in finding that line.
In any case, the Bible itself directly answers your question in 1 Corinthians 6:13. If you have any difficulty understanding this verse, feel free to follow-up with me.
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some room for negotiation here?
You needn’t worry about this. The altar of God has not existed for over 1900 years, and it won’t be coming back.
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
The practices of cutting the body and sculpting the hairline in a certain manner were associated with the occult practices named in the same passage you cited (Lev.19:26-28). God forbade his people (Israel) to practice any of the magical and occult arts that were associated with the religions of neighboring nations or to adopt their styles. God was “married” to the nation of Israel by a covenantal bond. For Israel to worship other deities was tantamount to committing adultery against her true husband (God). God’s objection to this, in principle, would be analogous to your objecting to your wife’s wearing a T-shirt around town that said “I love Harry! He’s great in bed!”(Harry being your obnoxious neighbor who breaks everything he borrows from you). If you would not find this objectionable, then the first lesson to be observed is that God is not much like you (which was already evident).
9. I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
Once again, the uncleanness of the pig (and other unclean creatures) was associated with the temple ritual cleanness, which has no continuing relevance to those who live beyond the end of the temple system (ended 70 AD). The ancient Jews had not yet discovered the gridiron, so the ethical dilemma you pose would never have come up. Had they faced this issue in their day, it would have been appropriate for them to decline to touch the football.
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
The laws forbidding the sowing of various crops in one field, of wearing garments of mixed cloths, and of plowing with an ox and an ass together were among the ceremonial restrictions that were intended to convey spiritual truths under the Old Testament Order (which is no longer defining of our duty). The spiritual lesson that these particular restrictions were meant to teach is that things that are fundamentally unlike one another (spiritually) should not be joined together. Hence, alluding to the restriction concerning the ox and the ass, Paul wrote, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers”(2 Cor.6:14). The clean beast (ox) was not to be joined under the same yoke with the unclean beast (ass), even as believers (clean in God’s sight) are not to be united with unbelievers (who are unclean in God’s sight).
If you have further difficulty understanding the Bible, you may consider the following remedies:
1. Paul wrote that “The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (2 Cor.2:14). The problem may be that you are a “natural” (i.e., unsaved) man. The solution would be to repent and become a humble follower of Christ.
2. Paul wrote, “Knowledge inflates the pride”(1 Cor.8:1), and Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, that you have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and have revealed them to babes!”(Matt.11:25). Perhaps, your much learning has made you too arrogant to understand the things of God. The solution would be to repent and become a humble follower of Christ.
3. Jesus said, “If anyone is WILLING to do God’s will, he will know concerning my teaching, whether it is from God, or whether I speak on my own authority” (John 7:17). Perhaps your problem lies just here. I have found by experience that this is the most widespread defect among those who claim to be baffled by the Scriptures…they simply do not want to obey the will of God for their lives, and thus remain incapable of knowing the truth. God follows his own instructions, and he has said, “Do not cast your pearls before swine, and do not give what is holy to dogs.” We may find the metaphors unflattering, and they do certainly seem a bit unfair. After all, to compare a person who despises and rebels against the benevolent One who has created him and has protected and sustained him throughout his whole life with a pig or a dog is an insult to the latter, since pigs and dogs never do anything contrary to what they were created to do.
According to God’s word, we have all been pigs and dogs in this sense. That is why we needed to be rescued, and that is why God sent his Son to accomplish the rescue. In dying for our sins, Jesus paid the penalty owed for our rebellion and by rising from the dead, he demonstrated that he was who he said he was, and became forever available to govern the lives of those who wisely place their confidence in him. I suspect that it is for lack of your doing this that you find God’s ways perplexing. The solution would be to repent and become a humble follower of Christ.