Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Leviticus

[Ramen Noodles]

Quick question; maybe I am just bad at being christian but I really feel like the book of "leviticus" has so many rules and regulations that seem out of place for the poetry of the Tanakh "Bible". Is this just me or is there more on this?

[jimwalton]

The book of Leviticus is to show us what it means to be holy, more specifically, how sinful men can be in the presence of a holy God, and how they can act so that His presence remains with them. It details the management of sacred space, sacred officials, sacred status, and sacred time. Sacred times must be identified, maintained by the priests, and observed by the people. Sacred space must be delineated and its sanctity preserved. Status of priests and people must be regulated by specific guidelines. These guidelines enable the priests to determine who has access to sacred time and sacred space and how particular levels of status can be achieved or maintained.

A rabbi friend once told me, "A great French restaurant may have an inviting ambience. Lev. 1-7 is a description of what is going on in the kitchen and how to place a fork—its spirituality comes in that we must first learn the steps if we want to dance."

That's what Leviticus is about. Teaching us to how to maintain God's presence. God's presence was lost at the Garden of Eden. God is offering to once again live in their midst (tabernacle, priests, law) if only they will live in such a way that He can abide there.

[Ramen Noodles]

Thank you for the added perspective! Your response gets me thinking, though. How do we interpret these rules and guidelines today? How do we deal with the problematic and challenging restrictions on gods own creation?

[jimwalton]

The rules and guidelines have no bearing on us today. The Levitical environment has to do with the context of theocracy. Civil law (the capital crimes) was intended for Israel as a theocratic state. When Israel/Judah fell (586 BC), the civil law became defunct with it. The civil law was not intended to be carried out by every government in history. It is no longer something secular governments are responsible to carry out. It is no longer something the Church is supposed to carry out. It is not a law or rule for us as Christians.

The NT doesn't have the job of either affirming or disaffirming the information from the OT. The NT is there to reveal Christ, and therefore it’s not a criterion for determining OT law. The more pertinent question is "What is the nature of the OT law?" First of all, it's pertinent to ancient law. Secondly, it's situated in the old covenant, and pertains to that covenant. It's telling how Israel should act based on the culture of the day. Third, it pertains to sacred space. We can't extract the law from those contexts. Just because it's in the OT doesn't mean it's a law for all time. It doesn't legislate for us.

It pertained to their covenant. It would be like saying, should America fall one day, would we or any other future person still live by our constitution and Bill of Rights? Of course not. That's for us. But aren't there good, noble, and moral ideas in it? Sure there are, but such things are defunct when the nation falls. We might still recognize the morality of certain elements, but we would no longer live under that agreement. Make sense?

My second thought: We have to see ancient law in its ancient context, not as we look at law. It was never meant to be prescriptive legislation (the way we look at law). It was only after the Reformation that people grew to think of law a codified legislation that is coercive in nature. Consequently, today we think of law as reflected in a legal code. Prior to that society was regulated by customs and norms, regulated by the wisdom of the judge. It was more flexible. Judges were those who were considered wise in the traditions and values of the culture rather than those who were specially educated. The law was not codified legislation, but rather what wise people deemed to be right, good, and fair.

The ancient codes never attempt to be exhaustive or comprehensive, because that was not their purpose. Ancient "lawyers" never rested on previous cases or precedent. Ancient litigants didn't want the judge to use a book or rules, constraints, and precedents to make his decision using his intuitions, values, morality, and wisdom.

The Torah is in this same cultural river. It is there to teach wisdom, not legislation. It is not meant to be comprehensive. For example, it contains little to nothing about marriage, divorce, inheritance, or adoption (four BIG deals in Israelite society). One can notice that the Torah is never relied on as a legal, normative basis for judicial rulings. Rather, it was intended to give the king/judge wisdom to do his job.

Both legal wisdom texts and treaties serve to establish or enhance the reputation of the king who produced them (in this case, God). In the case of the legal wisdom, the text establishes wisdom and justice, and thereby served to demonstrate that the king is wise and just. In the case of treaties, the document establishes the parameters of a relationship that will demonstrate the power and competence of the sovereign based on the treatment of his vassals. The use of both genres together indicates strongly that the overall purpose of Israel’s covenant is for YHWH to establish a reputation (to reveal himself). The purpose is not to legislate, but to reveal the character and nature of YHWH.

My third thought: The law (all of it) is fulfilled. The law that Christ fulfilled (Mt. 5.17) was the law in general—not just one part of it. He "fulfilled" it in that He did what the law failed to do: showed people how to live. The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. So the rule of thumb now is to follow Christ's example, not anything in the Torah. We can, in that sense, ignore the law, because if we follow Christ's example, we'll get the actions of the law and the attitudes of the heart. Since the law was supposed to reflect the right attitudes, starting with the right attitudes will more often than not bring about actions that are in keeping with the law. But we don't do them because of the law; we do them because that is what godly attitudes bring about. So all of the law was fulfilled in Christ and our behavior now is not based at all on the law but on Jesus’s example (cf. Romans 13.8-10). The coinciding with many points of the law is to be expected, but we are not living by even that section of law.

> How do we deal with the problematic and challenging restrictions on gods own creation?

You'll have to explain what you mean by this. I keep reading it over and over and can't get it. But, hey, maybe I answered it already in the post. (shrugging my shoulders)