Here's a letter placed expertly inside a book I've been reading lately. The book is called "What Jesus Meant" by Garry Wills (Viking: 2006). Though though the book aligns with much of the "radical, irreligious, postmodern, postliberal/conservative, frankly posteverything" stream of thought I find his concise-ness and to-the-point-ness refreshing. This letter he recovered from an unknown internet source and described it as being written to a "protestant evangelical who believes in literal reading of the Bible:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination - end of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
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?
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 offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor to the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor 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, or should I ask the police to do it?
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? Are there degrees of abomination?
7. Leviticus 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 wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 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. It is 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)?
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. "
P(33-35)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ya. This letter raises some interesting issues.
The author of the Internet letter seems to assume that a "protestant evangelical who believes in a literal reading of the Bible" is obligated to obey these commandments, or is at least being arbitrary if he sets aside these particularly weird sounding commandments.
I suspect he thinks the problem with such a "protestant evangelical who believes in a literal reading of the Bible" is that they: (1) take the Bible too literally, and/or (2) take the Bible too seriously.
In reply I say that a literal reading of the Bible leads us to see that these commandments are literally not for us, not merely because they seem crazy to us modern folks, but because we are literally NOT in relationship to God in/through the Sinai/Mosaic Covenant.
And I also say that anyone who takes the Bible with utmost seriousness, on its own terms and according to the flow of redemptive history found in it, must make it seriously clear that we are not in/under the Covenant at Sinai.
So I say the author of this Internet letter is right to raise this issue, and point out the way some folks (particularly Dispensational folks I think) seem to apply the Law of Moses in a inconsistent manor.
But I also say that the author is wrong to assume (as he seems to) that the way to avoid this is to either (1) take the Bible with less seriousness, and/or (2) take the Bible less 'literally'.
Instead, the way forward is to take seriously (and literally) the flow of redemptive history, and rightly understand the role which the Law of Moses plays in the unfolding of redemptive history.
Still, as an aside, I say the fact that performing sexual acts with someone of the same gender is outlawed in the Law of Moses is not insignificant. It is significant. That is, it seems to signify something. Even seemingly "crazy" laws which outlaw weaving two different kinds of fiber together signify something. In both cases we can ask ourselves, "what is signified here?" and come up with something that matters and teaches us something.
It is not arbitrary or hypocritical to say that we learn from the Law of Moses that "performing sex acts with a person of the same gender is wicked" while also maintaing that "weaving two different kinds of fiber together is not". The whole 'weaving of fibers thing' was a living sign and symbol to Israel, and her neighbors, that Israel was to be nation of priests distinct and separate from the common nations which surrounded her. The command against "men laying with men" is an implication and application of the doctrine of Creation.
This isn't arbitrary. This is precisely what Jesus and Apostles did with the Law of Moses. Food laws are out. Basically all the laws which signified/symbolized the separation of Israel from the common nations are all out. That's because the wall between Jews and Gentiles has been torn down in Christ, and the whole world has been invited into the family. BUT not all which was outlawed by the Law of Moses is now automatically permissible. Idolatry is still wrong. Murder is still wrong. Etc. Etc.
Also, the death penalty found in the Law of Moses was essentially a kind of "maximum sentence". Alternatively, some folks who violated these laws could flee to cities of refuge.
On top of this, the death penalty found in the Law of Moses was an in-breaking of the final eschatological judgement coming at the end of the age. Israel was a type and shadow of the coming Kingdom, the new heavens and earth.
We no longer live in the typological kingdom which pointed ahead to the full and true kingdom, and we no longer live under the covenant of Moses, so these specific penalties of death don't directly apply to us.
Totally agree. Nice work with the literal, serious movements of thought. You did a good job at outlining the "literal" meaning of literal. I too feel we need to approach these types of passages with our feet planted firmly in the culture of which they were written. What did they mean back then? Why were they significant to their original culture? Yet at the same time have our heads looking at them through the New Testament and with understanding of the new covenant. New has it's prerequesit, old. For something to be new something must be old. There must be something before so that there can be something after. Thus, new is dependent upon old, comes out of old, is directly tied to old; yet, goes beyond old.
Post a Comment