Carrying on from yesterday, we have the next point.
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?
On this occasion we have a law which is in that class of Moral Laws, though taken out of context it doesn't appear so. Let's look at the verse in context...
"You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes. You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:26-28)
This is not a list of unrelated prohibitions. These are all related. They all refer to pagan worship practices. This is not saying that it is immoral to have a hair cut, or even to have a tattoo. But cutting one's hair in a certain pattern, or having certain images tattooed on ones' self were things done in the worship of pagan idols; as was cutting ones' self for the dead, and interpreting omens or telling fortunes. To mock the Bible as saying you cannot have a hair cut would be like hearing a Christian preacher today tell you "Don't mess with Tarrot cards," and then mock Christianity saying "They forbid playing card games!"; as though Christianity forbids a game of Bridge. No, the prohibition on fortune telling and all kinds of occult practices still stands for Christians today, but a hair cut to look tidy and fashionable has never been a problem. As for whether Christians can or can't get a tattoo, this law certainly wouldn't forbid them unless it were in an occult context. A Christian with a tattoo in honour of some non-Christian religion or philosophy just doesn't make sense.
Looking at the next point, we have reference (again) to the Ceremonial laws regarding ceremonial "cleanliness".
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?
There is a lot of confusion about the reason God gave laws regarding “ceremonial cleanliness” (or “purity laws”). Many have offered their own rationale which usually seems to make sense for one set of purity laws, but not for others. I have my own rationale also, but I don’t think there is just one reason for them all. Rather, there are various purity laws given, each with their own purpose in mind. But here we’re talking about the laws regarding food. It was not permitted for an Israelite to eat pork, and not even to “touch their carcasses”. One of the reasons for these dietary laws seems to be to separate the Israelites from the other nations, so that one was greatly hindered in attempts to share a meal with foreigners. Sharing a meal is something the Bible considers to be significant in the relationship between people. After reminding the people to distinguish between clean and unclean animals, God says “You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.” (Leviticus 20:26). In Acts 10, God clearly abolishes the distinction between clean and unclean animals in the vision of Peter, and Peter clearly understands this to mean the abolition of a distinction between Jew and Gentile. While the people of God in the Old Testament were a nation separate from other nations, (Israel, and anyone who would come to God through Israel); the people of God in the New Testament include both Jew and Gentile alike who come to God through Christ. This is sufficient for our purposes here to see why touching the skin of a dead pig is no longer applicable today. But touching the skin of a dead pig was never a moral transgression, and there remains no moral laws cited in this Letter which are abrogated by the New Testament.
Part 4 <- -> Part 6
Monday, June 13, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Answering the Letter to Dr Laura, Part 4
Continuing right along with the bullet points of the Letter, the next one reads:
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?
Dealing with the minor issue first... no, it would not be the moral obligation of an individual to put someone to death for violating the Sabbath. This would have been the duty of the government through the proper legal proceedings. But more than that, I don’t think the issue of morality comes into Sabbath breaking. The Sabbath has moral implications; you cannot have your employees work and work without ever giving them a break. But whether that break is on the seventh day of the week or on some other day is not a moral issue. The Sabbath appears to have been one of the Ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. These are not laws to teach us moral correctness, necessarily, but laws to teach us about God and His plan for mankind. The Sabbath, above all, is really all about the age of rest to come which God promises His people... those who trust in God so as to lay aside their own work and rely on Him. A reference to the Sabbath law in the context of this letter to Dr Laura is inappropriate, since the whole point being made by the letter to Dr Laura is that the morality of the Bible is not the morality that anybody lives by today. It should therefore only cite examples of such moral standards which we no longer follow, if the writer can find any.
Moving to the next point of the letter, then...
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?
Here we face the same issue. The food laws were not against something immoral. If it were immoral to eat certain foods, Christ could not have declared all foods clean in the New Testament. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is considered an immoral act by the Biblical authors (eg 1 Corinthians 6:9). But here we’re faced with a problem... that word “abomination”. Both the eating of shellfish and homosexuality are called an “abomination”. When applied to both of these things, it surely makes them comparable. How should we understand the word “abomination”? The definition of the word “abomination” is “something detestable”. The ESV happens to use the word “detestable” in Leviticus 11:10, in fact. I think that the word “abomination” has come to have that strong connotation of something morally abhorrent. But actually, something may be detestable because it’s morally abhorrent. And something can be detestable because we just don’t like it. In the case of the food laws the Jews are being taught to detest certain foods. It doesn’t mean that they should detest them because eating them is morally wrong. So again, the writer of this letter is comparing a Ceremonial law which is not a moral issue, to a law which does refer to a moral issue. The letter is trying to suggest that we “pick and choose” arbitrarily which laws to uphold today and which to disregard, but the choice is not arbitrary at all: Ceremonial laws are abrogated, but the Moral laws are not.
In the interests of time I won’t spend long on the next point of the letter; it is the same issue again where the writer is using a Ceremonial law as an example. The following point reads:
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 wiggle room here?
Actually, this verse is referring to the priests specifically; and it is certain that the writer of this letter is not a priest of Israel. But we may, of course, wonder why such a Ceremonial law existed. And of course, it is there to teach us that God’s standards are high. When we read of laws like this, it should be all the more incredible to us that God became a man and mingled amongst the poor and lame, desiring to be with them; and that through Christ we may all, now, be made perfect and come into His presence. Whereas we are unworthy to approach God, God has made it possible for us to approach Him though His own condescension and grace toward us.
Well, hopefully you’re becoming aware that the writer is really trying to pull a fast one on you. The point that the writer is trying to make is that the prohibition on homosexuality should be invalid today as all these other laws are. But to make this point at all, the writer simply must demonstrate that there are other moral laws which we disregard. Instead, possibly out of ignorance, the writer has referred to laws of a different class altogether: Ceremonial laws which are not prohibitions against immoral acts. According to Christian theology, the Judicial and Ceremonial laws no longer apply for good reasons. The Moral law, however, must always apply.
Part 3 <- -> Part 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?
Dealing with the minor issue first... no, it would not be the moral obligation of an individual to put someone to death for violating the Sabbath. This would have been the duty of the government through the proper legal proceedings. But more than that, I don’t think the issue of morality comes into Sabbath breaking. The Sabbath has moral implications; you cannot have your employees work and work without ever giving them a break. But whether that break is on the seventh day of the week or on some other day is not a moral issue. The Sabbath appears to have been one of the Ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. These are not laws to teach us moral correctness, necessarily, but laws to teach us about God and His plan for mankind. The Sabbath, above all, is really all about the age of rest to come which God promises His people... those who trust in God so as to lay aside their own work and rely on Him. A reference to the Sabbath law in the context of this letter to Dr Laura is inappropriate, since the whole point being made by the letter to Dr Laura is that the morality of the Bible is not the morality that anybody lives by today. It should therefore only cite examples of such moral standards which we no longer follow, if the writer can find any.
Moving to the next point of the letter, then...
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?
Here we face the same issue. The food laws were not against something immoral. If it were immoral to eat certain foods, Christ could not have declared all foods clean in the New Testament. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is considered an immoral act by the Biblical authors (eg 1 Corinthians 6:9). But here we’re faced with a problem... that word “abomination”. Both the eating of shellfish and homosexuality are called an “abomination”. When applied to both of these things, it surely makes them comparable. How should we understand the word “abomination”? The definition of the word “abomination” is “something detestable”. The ESV happens to use the word “detestable” in Leviticus 11:10, in fact. I think that the word “abomination” has come to have that strong connotation of something morally abhorrent. But actually, something may be detestable because it’s morally abhorrent. And something can be detestable because we just don’t like it. In the case of the food laws the Jews are being taught to detest certain foods. It doesn’t mean that they should detest them because eating them is morally wrong. So again, the writer of this letter is comparing a Ceremonial law which is not a moral issue, to a law which does refer to a moral issue. The letter is trying to suggest that we “pick and choose” arbitrarily which laws to uphold today and which to disregard, but the choice is not arbitrary at all: Ceremonial laws are abrogated, but the Moral laws are not.
In the interests of time I won’t spend long on the next point of the letter; it is the same issue again where the writer is using a Ceremonial law as an example. The following point reads:
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 wiggle room here?
Actually, this verse is referring to the priests specifically; and it is certain that the writer of this letter is not a priest of Israel. But we may, of course, wonder why such a Ceremonial law existed. And of course, it is there to teach us that God’s standards are high. When we read of laws like this, it should be all the more incredible to us that God became a man and mingled amongst the poor and lame, desiring to be with them; and that through Christ we may all, now, be made perfect and come into His presence. Whereas we are unworthy to approach God, God has made it possible for us to approach Him though His own condescension and grace toward us.
Well, hopefully you’re becoming aware that the writer is really trying to pull a fast one on you. The point that the writer is trying to make is that the prohibition on homosexuality should be invalid today as all these other laws are. But to make this point at all, the writer simply must demonstrate that there are other moral laws which we disregard. Instead, possibly out of ignorance, the writer has referred to laws of a different class altogether: Ceremonial laws which are not prohibitions against immoral acts. According to Christian theology, the Judicial and Ceremonial laws no longer apply for good reasons. The Moral law, however, must always apply.
Part 3 <- -> Part 5
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Answering the Letter to Dr Laura, Part 3
The next point made in the Letter is as follows:
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.
Of course, there’s an emphasis on humour in this letter. But here we want to discuss these criticisms seriously. It’s not the case that a person was not permitted to have contact with a woman on her period. That’s not what the laws in the passage cited are saying, exactly. They say that if you have contact with a woman on her period you will be “unclean”. Now, to be in an “unclean” state did not mean that you had committed some sin. The things that make you “unclean” are not sinful acts. Contact with a woman on her period was not a sinful act but it made a person “unclean”. God made these laws regarding "cleanliness" or "purity" to essentially set Israel apart from other nations. Whenever the Bible gives a reason for the purity laws it is essentially like this one in Leviticus 20...
You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine. (Leviticus 20:26)
This is in the context of keeping away from unclean animals, but serves to show what the purity laws were essentially about. To be holy literally means to be "set apart". People often associate it with being righteous or without sin, which is true; but in a broader sense it is to be set apart. So Israel was to be set apart from the other nations in that they didn't do the sinful acts of those nations, but they were also set apart because they had these purity laws. To be unclean meant that you were not permitted to worship at the temple. In other words, you were barred from participating in the essential thing that separated Israel from the rest of the nations. You had lost that distinctiveness for a time. In the Leviticus passage cited, contact with a woman on her period rendered you unclean “until the evening”. Sinful acts needed to be atoned for with a sacrifice, but the non-sinful state of being unclean simply "expired".
Regarding women on their periods; it was not for a person to determine whether a woman was on her period or not, but for a woman who was on her period to be careful where she went and with whom she had contact with. If you did come into contact with a woman on her period while on your way to the temple, say, then you can hardly be held accountable. The reason contact with a menstruating woman was one of the things which made a person unclean is probably beyond the scope of this particular post.
Well, Christians are supposed to be holy, or "set apart" from unbelievers. So we might wonder why such laws don’t apply to Christians today. The quickest answer I can give for that would be that through the incarnation of Christ, where God became a man, all things were made clean. Without a more detailed discussion of the cleanliness laws, which I don’t want to spend time doing now, this answer will have to suffice. What remains for Christian holiness is purity from sin.
So moving on to the next point the Letter makes:
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed 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?
Let’s read Leviticus 25:44-46...
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
Here I think we need to put this in the context of the “big picture”. Adam was called by God to rule over all creation. But Adam sinned, and so followed the fall of mankind. God’s plan of redemption, however, carries on through Israel. Israel was called like Adam to rule, but to rule over the nations. It was Israel’s vocation to present God to all the nations; that is, to all of fallen mankind. Of course they themselves were fallen, but God’s plan of redemption was to start with Israel and spread to all the Earth through Israel. In Deuteronomy we read:
For the LORD your God will bless you, as he promised you, and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow, and you shall rule over many nations, but they shall not rule over you. (Deuteronomy 15:6)
The blessing promised is probably the one made to Abraham Genesis 12...
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Genesis 12:2-3)
The point is that it was Israel’s vocation to rule over the nations, just as it is Christ’s destiny to rule over the nations. And this is how we should understand Israel’s relationship to the nations; that they were to rule over them for the purpose that the nations might be blessed, in that they might come to know God. When one nation rules over the other, their labours are devoted to the building of that conquering nation. If they refuse to be under the employment of their new government they are considered rebels. Whether we agree or not, it was for a Gentile nation’s own good that Israel rule over them; that they have God’s own appointed nation to be the chief influence over their lives, leading them to the one true God of Creation.
But how does such a nation treat its slaves? As we saw in Part 2, slaves were to be treated kindly. But if a captured nation remains in rebellion to their captors, what do we expect should happen? Yet if a captured nation submits to their captors, then they essentially become as one with that nation. Consider Ruth, for example, (though she wasn’t captured by Israel but came to Israel willingly), her submission to Israeli rule made her, for all intents and purposes, an Israelite. She even finds herself in the genealogy of Christ Himself; a man borne of Israel.
Of course, these laws referred specifically to Israel and their neighbouring nations. It doesn’t apply to America and its neighbouring nations today. But nor does it apply to present day Israel and its neighbouring nations today. Christ established His Church which is a body of people from many nations, scattered amongst many nations. It is through the mission of the Church now that the world comes to know God. From Adam, to Israel, to the Church, God has expanded His kingdom. Presently all who follow Christ are His slaves, and are happy to be so (the Bible literally uses the term “slave”, or “doulos” in the Greek). And we know that one day all who continue in rebellion to Christ, the true ruler, will be put out.
This is the picture of the Old Testament laws on slavery. The imposition of Israeli rule should have been submitted to, in which case a slave should hardly feel like a slave. Was this imposition of Israeli rule wrong? Not when it really was the true God of all creation appointing Israel to lead all nations to Himself. And of course, unless they kept that mission as their focus their rule would have been wrong. This doesn’t make the Law itself wrong because Israel would have been transgressors of the Law when they lost sight of their God-given mission and purpose.
Part 2 <- -> Part 4
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.
Of course, there’s an emphasis on humour in this letter. But here we want to discuss these criticisms seriously. It’s not the case that a person was not permitted to have contact with a woman on her period. That’s not what the laws in the passage cited are saying, exactly. They say that if you have contact with a woman on her period you will be “unclean”. Now, to be in an “unclean” state did not mean that you had committed some sin. The things that make you “unclean” are not sinful acts. Contact with a woman on her period was not a sinful act but it made a person “unclean”. God made these laws regarding "cleanliness" or "purity" to essentially set Israel apart from other nations. Whenever the Bible gives a reason for the purity laws it is essentially like this one in Leviticus 20...
You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine. (Leviticus 20:26)
This is in the context of keeping away from unclean animals, but serves to show what the purity laws were essentially about. To be holy literally means to be "set apart". People often associate it with being righteous or without sin, which is true; but in a broader sense it is to be set apart. So Israel was to be set apart from the other nations in that they didn't do the sinful acts of those nations, but they were also set apart because they had these purity laws. To be unclean meant that you were not permitted to worship at the temple. In other words, you were barred from participating in the essential thing that separated Israel from the rest of the nations. You had lost that distinctiveness for a time. In the Leviticus passage cited, contact with a woman on her period rendered you unclean “until the evening”. Sinful acts needed to be atoned for with a sacrifice, but the non-sinful state of being unclean simply "expired".
Regarding women on their periods; it was not for a person to determine whether a woman was on her period or not, but for a woman who was on her period to be careful where she went and with whom she had contact with. If you did come into contact with a woman on her period while on your way to the temple, say, then you can hardly be held accountable. The reason contact with a menstruating woman was one of the things which made a person unclean is probably beyond the scope of this particular post.
Well, Christians are supposed to be holy, or "set apart" from unbelievers. So we might wonder why such laws don’t apply to Christians today. The quickest answer I can give for that would be that through the incarnation of Christ, where God became a man, all things were made clean. Without a more detailed discussion of the cleanliness laws, which I don’t want to spend time doing now, this answer will have to suffice. What remains for Christian holiness is purity from sin.
So moving on to the next point the Letter makes:
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed 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?
Let’s read Leviticus 25:44-46...
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
Here I think we need to put this in the context of the “big picture”. Adam was called by God to rule over all creation. But Adam sinned, and so followed the fall of mankind. God’s plan of redemption, however, carries on through Israel. Israel was called like Adam to rule, but to rule over the nations. It was Israel’s vocation to present God to all the nations; that is, to all of fallen mankind. Of course they themselves were fallen, but God’s plan of redemption was to start with Israel and spread to all the Earth through Israel. In Deuteronomy we read:
For the LORD your God will bless you, as he promised you, and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow, and you shall rule over many nations, but they shall not rule over you. (Deuteronomy 15:6)
The blessing promised is probably the one made to Abraham Genesis 12...
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Genesis 12:2-3)
The point is that it was Israel’s vocation to rule over the nations, just as it is Christ’s destiny to rule over the nations. And this is how we should understand Israel’s relationship to the nations; that they were to rule over them for the purpose that the nations might be blessed, in that they might come to know God. When one nation rules over the other, their labours are devoted to the building of that conquering nation. If they refuse to be under the employment of their new government they are considered rebels. Whether we agree or not, it was for a Gentile nation’s own good that Israel rule over them; that they have God’s own appointed nation to be the chief influence over their lives, leading them to the one true God of Creation.
But how does such a nation treat its slaves? As we saw in Part 2, slaves were to be treated kindly. But if a captured nation remains in rebellion to their captors, what do we expect should happen? Yet if a captured nation submits to their captors, then they essentially become as one with that nation. Consider Ruth, for example, (though she wasn’t captured by Israel but came to Israel willingly), her submission to Israeli rule made her, for all intents and purposes, an Israelite. She even finds herself in the genealogy of Christ Himself; a man borne of Israel.
Of course, these laws referred specifically to Israel and their neighbouring nations. It doesn’t apply to America and its neighbouring nations today. But nor does it apply to present day Israel and its neighbouring nations today. Christ established His Church which is a body of people from many nations, scattered amongst many nations. It is through the mission of the Church now that the world comes to know God. From Adam, to Israel, to the Church, God has expanded His kingdom. Presently all who follow Christ are His slaves, and are happy to be so (the Bible literally uses the term “slave”, or “doulos” in the Greek). And we know that one day all who continue in rebellion to Christ, the true ruler, will be put out.
This is the picture of the Old Testament laws on slavery. The imposition of Israeli rule should have been submitted to, in which case a slave should hardly feel like a slave. Was this imposition of Israeli rule wrong? Not when it really was the true God of all creation appointing Israel to lead all nations to Himself. And of course, unless they kept that mission as their focus their rule would have been wrong. This doesn’t make the Law itself wrong because Israel would have been transgressors of the Law when they lost sight of their God-given mission and purpose.
Part 2 <- -> Part 4
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Answering the Letter to Dr Laura, Part 2
In this post we’ll start looking at the specific Laws criticized in the Letter to Dr Laura. There are ten bullet points, but hopefully we won’t need another ten posts to answer them all! The first bullet point in the Letter reads...
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I’m not blind to the sarcasm here. This refers to an offering made at the temple (or the tabernacle at this point in history), so the neighbours wouldn’t really be complaining about that. And there’s no Law which says that one should smite their neighbour for complaining about sacrifices to God. But that’s all beside the point. This is simply mocking the sacrificial system, Biblical language and the practice of capital punishment in the Mosaic Law for things which seemed unworthy of such measures.
There are three categories in which theologians group the Mosaic Laws. There is the Moral Law, the Ceremonial Law, and the Judicial Law. Of course, theologians often still discuss the categorization for specific Laws today. After all, the Bible doesn’t categorize the Law this way, and we often find that Laws from different categories are mixed together in the same context. Nevertheless, the distinction between these categories is most certainly there, even if the lines are occasionally blurred. Offering animals as a sacrifice is undoubtedly a Ceremonial Law. But the Ceremonial Laws were designed for people who lived before Christ. Animal sacrifices point to the perfect sacrifice of Christ. Worship in the temple having priests as mediators between God and man illustrates a present reality in which Christ Himself is our priest (and now able to be one since the incarnation), and the temple with the Holy of Holies is representative of heaven where God is on His throne.
For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. (Hebrews 9:24)
All of these ceremonies are done away with since Christ has come (“For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” Hebrews 7:12). They illustrated what He would do, but now we no longer need the illustration.
So this Letter insinuates that Christians pick and choose which Laws to obey, but a proper reading of the whole Bible shows that we ought to at least cease following the Ceremonial commandments. Further study shows that we ought to cease following the Judicial as well since they apply to God’s people as a nation, but now God’s people consist of citizens from all nations. This is why the Laws regarding capital punishment no longer apply either. Which government is supposed to enforce them? We no longer have a theocratic government, and we’re not necessarily supposed to.
Generally speaking just about all the laws cited in this Letter fall into the category of Ceremonial or Judicial laws, which is why we no longer observe them. But one might say, “That’s fine; I’m not bothered that Jesus told you not to observe those Laws anymore. I’m more concerned that they weren’t moral, which suggests that God (the Law-giver) is not moral.” This is probably the chief concern in the Letter writer’s next bullet point...
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?
Selling one's daughter into slavery sounds like a fairly immoral thing to do because slavery is oppressive. When we consider the way that black slaves were treated once upon a time; they were more or less treated like animals. But it is certain that God opposes this kind of slavery. We read in Exodus 3...
Then the LORD said, "I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land... (Exodus 3:7-8)
God had compassion upon the Israelites because of their slavery. God, consistent with this character, tells Israel not to be like their Egyptian slavemasters. For example, He said “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21). But when the Old Testament speaks of slavery it doesn’t always necessarily imply an oppressive kind of slavery. It is actually out of concern for the poor that such laws are declared, so that the poor who would otherwise be homeless might find food and shelter and protection under their master, who is commanded by these laws to treat their slaves with kindness. Relating this to the modern day, the best analogy I can think of is the bank and the mortgagee. We all find ourselves in a kind of slavery when we take out a mortgage to buy a home. A large proportion of our income is for the bank. But there must also be laws in place to ensure that banks treat their clients well and don’t take advantage of them. Here a daughter is essentially going to work to support the family. This may, in this culture be "whether the daughter likes it or not", but this isn't immoral in the same way that a father might tell his daughter in this day and age to go to school and forbids her to drop out "whether she likes it or not." Many parents these days don't exercise enough authority over their children, but this may actually be a problem with modern parents rather than an improvement over this ancient culture.
Part 1 <- -> Part 3
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I’m not blind to the sarcasm here. This refers to an offering made at the temple (or the tabernacle at this point in history), so the neighbours wouldn’t really be complaining about that. And there’s no Law which says that one should smite their neighbour for complaining about sacrifices to God. But that’s all beside the point. This is simply mocking the sacrificial system, Biblical language and the practice of capital punishment in the Mosaic Law for things which seemed unworthy of such measures.
There are three categories in which theologians group the Mosaic Laws. There is the Moral Law, the Ceremonial Law, and the Judicial Law. Of course, theologians often still discuss the categorization for specific Laws today. After all, the Bible doesn’t categorize the Law this way, and we often find that Laws from different categories are mixed together in the same context. Nevertheless, the distinction between these categories is most certainly there, even if the lines are occasionally blurred. Offering animals as a sacrifice is undoubtedly a Ceremonial Law. But the Ceremonial Laws were designed for people who lived before Christ. Animal sacrifices point to the perfect sacrifice of Christ. Worship in the temple having priests as mediators between God and man illustrates a present reality in which Christ Himself is our priest (and now able to be one since the incarnation), and the temple with the Holy of Holies is representative of heaven where God is on His throne.
For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. (Hebrews 9:24)
All of these ceremonies are done away with since Christ has come (“For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” Hebrews 7:12). They illustrated what He would do, but now we no longer need the illustration.
So this Letter insinuates that Christians pick and choose which Laws to obey, but a proper reading of the whole Bible shows that we ought to at least cease following the Ceremonial commandments. Further study shows that we ought to cease following the Judicial as well since they apply to God’s people as a nation, but now God’s people consist of citizens from all nations. This is why the Laws regarding capital punishment no longer apply either. Which government is supposed to enforce them? We no longer have a theocratic government, and we’re not necessarily supposed to.
Generally speaking just about all the laws cited in this Letter fall into the category of Ceremonial or Judicial laws, which is why we no longer observe them. But one might say, “That’s fine; I’m not bothered that Jesus told you not to observe those Laws anymore. I’m more concerned that they weren’t moral, which suggests that God (the Law-giver) is not moral.” This is probably the chief concern in the Letter writer’s next bullet point...
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?
Selling one's daughter into slavery sounds like a fairly immoral thing to do because slavery is oppressive. When we consider the way that black slaves were treated once upon a time; they were more or less treated like animals. But it is certain that God opposes this kind of slavery. We read in Exodus 3...
Then the LORD said, "I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land... (Exodus 3:7-8)
God had compassion upon the Israelites because of their slavery. God, consistent with this character, tells Israel not to be like their Egyptian slavemasters. For example, He said “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21). But when the Old Testament speaks of slavery it doesn’t always necessarily imply an oppressive kind of slavery. It is actually out of concern for the poor that such laws are declared, so that the poor who would otherwise be homeless might find food and shelter and protection under their master, who is commanded by these laws to treat their slaves with kindness. Relating this to the modern day, the best analogy I can think of is the bank and the mortgagee. We all find ourselves in a kind of slavery when we take out a mortgage to buy a home. A large proportion of our income is for the bank. But there must also be laws in place to ensure that banks treat their clients well and don’t take advantage of them. Here a daughter is essentially going to work to support the family. This may, in this culture be "whether the daughter likes it or not", but this isn't immoral in the same way that a father might tell his daughter in this day and age to go to school and forbids her to drop out "whether she likes it or not." Many parents these days don't exercise enough authority over their children, but this may actually be a problem with modern parents rather than an improvement over this ancient culture.
Part 1 <- -> Part 3
Monday, June 6, 2011
Answering the Letter to Dr Laura, Part 1
I once attended a forum discussion on homosexuality. There were a handful of Christians and a handful of representatives for the gay community. The discussion was around whether God disapproves of homosexuality. The Christian, adhering to the Bible, will say that God does not approve of homosexuality based on what the Bible says. Leviticus 18:22 says, for example, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” However, one of the gay men on the forum said this... “Why don’t you Google the ‘Letter to Dr Laura’. I have never met a Christian who could answer that letter!” At that time I had never read the “Letter to Dr Laura”, so I later Googled it. After I read it, I thought “It’s a real shame that no Christian has been able to offer answers for this gentleman.” So I have wanted to post a response to this letter for some time. I suppose the only problem is that it will be very long, which is why I’m splitting up my response over a few days. Let’s first acquaint ourselves with the Letter.
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I 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 him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) 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?
c) 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.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed 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?
e) 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?
f) 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?
g) 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 wiggle room here?
h) 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?
i) 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?
j) 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)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Now, Dr. Laura is Jewish and this letter is really an attack on the Jewish religion, not the Christian religion. But Christians also subscribe to the Old Testament, and so I’m not out of place to give a Christian response to this letter. The real issue in the Letter to Dr Laura is that the Law of Moses commands some things which no Christian, (nor many Jews) observe these days. And so if Christians have some reason to abandon some of the Laws, then why do they cling to the prohibition on homosexuality? Furthermore, some of the Mosaic Laws appear to be altogether absurd and possibly even immoral. And so we’re left to wonder why we ought to appeal to a Mosaic legislation at all? This is a very common attack on Christianity these days, where people criticize Christians for "picking out the good bits and ignoring the bad bits". But if the same God of Christianity gave the Law of Moses, then why would we disapprove somehow of what God has said in the past? In this first part of the answer I want to address this issue in general.
The Law of Moses was given by God to be the law of the land for the nation of Israel. The Law was a revelation of God’s character. For example, the Ten Commandments show us how we ought to relate to God and to one another; that we should only honour God as God, and that we should treat one another with respect and dignity. Paul said:
The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:9-10)
Now, loving one’s neighbour is not as straight forward as it seems. If it were as simple as that, God would have given just one commandment; “Love your neighbour”. Why did God have to give so many more? It’s because we, as fallen people, don’t really understand perfectly what it means to love one another. God gives us examples of what it means to love one another, and to love God.
Paul explains...
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners... (1 Timothy 1:8-9)
That is to say that if we were all perfectly righteous there would be no need for the law to tell us how we should live; what behaviours we ought or ought not to do. We would already know and do those things. It’s precisely because we don’t know what is right, and because we don’t obey what we do know is right, that we need God to show us. The purpose of the law is to show us our sin, and to show us our need for a Saviour. Many of the Mosaic Laws are plain moral truths... “You shall not kill.” But others pertain more to a humanity living prior to Christ, such as the sacrificial laws which essentially become an illustration of Christ’s work on the cross as our perfect atoning sacrifice. And then there are some laws which deal with how a nation called to represent God before all other nations ought to be run. In Christian theology we draw a distinction between these kinds of laws; namely the Moral, Ceremonial and Judicial Laws. Well, after Christ had died on the cross and rose again, there was no more direct application for the Ceremonial Laws which formed that illustration of various aspects of Christ’s work. And once the people of God consisted no longer in the nation of Israel only but consisted of Gentiles from all nations, the Judicial Laws specific to the nation of Israel were no longer directly applicable. These laws are no longer obeyed according to the letter, but there are principles behind them which do still apply. But perhaps we’ll see how this works as these posts roll out over the next week or so?
-> Part 2
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I 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 him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) 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?
c) 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.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed 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?
e) 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?
f) 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?
g) 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 wiggle room here?
h) 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?
i) 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?
j) 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)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Now, Dr. Laura is Jewish and this letter is really an attack on the Jewish religion, not the Christian religion. But Christians also subscribe to the Old Testament, and so I’m not out of place to give a Christian response to this letter. The real issue in the Letter to Dr Laura is that the Law of Moses commands some things which no Christian, (nor many Jews) observe these days. And so if Christians have some reason to abandon some of the Laws, then why do they cling to the prohibition on homosexuality? Furthermore, some of the Mosaic Laws appear to be altogether absurd and possibly even immoral. And so we’re left to wonder why we ought to appeal to a Mosaic legislation at all? This is a very common attack on Christianity these days, where people criticize Christians for "picking out the good bits and ignoring the bad bits". But if the same God of Christianity gave the Law of Moses, then why would we disapprove somehow of what God has said in the past? In this first part of the answer I want to address this issue in general.
The Law of Moses was given by God to be the law of the land for the nation of Israel. The Law was a revelation of God’s character. For example, the Ten Commandments show us how we ought to relate to God and to one another; that we should only honour God as God, and that we should treat one another with respect and dignity. Paul said:
The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:9-10)
Now, loving one’s neighbour is not as straight forward as it seems. If it were as simple as that, God would have given just one commandment; “Love your neighbour”. Why did God have to give so many more? It’s because we, as fallen people, don’t really understand perfectly what it means to love one another. God gives us examples of what it means to love one another, and to love God.
Paul explains...
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners... (1 Timothy 1:8-9)
That is to say that if we were all perfectly righteous there would be no need for the law to tell us how we should live; what behaviours we ought or ought not to do. We would already know and do those things. It’s precisely because we don’t know what is right, and because we don’t obey what we do know is right, that we need God to show us. The purpose of the law is to show us our sin, and to show us our need for a Saviour. Many of the Mosaic Laws are plain moral truths... “You shall not kill.” But others pertain more to a humanity living prior to Christ, such as the sacrificial laws which essentially become an illustration of Christ’s work on the cross as our perfect atoning sacrifice. And then there are some laws which deal with how a nation called to represent God before all other nations ought to be run. In Christian theology we draw a distinction between these kinds of laws; namely the Moral, Ceremonial and Judicial Laws. Well, after Christ had died on the cross and rose again, there was no more direct application for the Ceremonial Laws which formed that illustration of various aspects of Christ’s work. And once the people of God consisted no longer in the nation of Israel only but consisted of Gentiles from all nations, the Judicial Laws specific to the nation of Israel were no longer directly applicable. These laws are no longer obeyed according to the letter, but there are principles behind them which do still apply. But perhaps we’ll see how this works as these posts roll out over the next week or so?
-> Part 2
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Richard Dawkins on Multiverse Theory
"If we are going to permit the extravagance of a multiverse, so the argument runs, we might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and allow a God."
His response is not completely logical...
"People who think that have not had their consciousness raised by natural selection. The key difference between the genuinely extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis is one of statistical improbability. The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain."
Dawkins’ main argument against God being responsible for the fine tuning of our universe is that a being capable of tuning our universe is, Himself, far too complex to have come into existence. However, we don’t say that God ever came into existence, but that He has always existed. Evolutionists are blinded by the assumption that simple things become complex, or that complex things are assembled from simpler things. But they’re only simple in comparison to the whole. Even an atom and the forces which bind it together is incredibly complex. It actually makes more sense that a complex being is responsible for the design of simpler things. But in any case, God is not material and is subject to different laws, and so Dawkins cannot even say that the probability of something spiritually complex coming into existence is small. If Dawkins posits that other universes may exist then there is a far greater probability, according to Dawkins’ own science, that there is a God; because other universes subject to different laws may produce something phenomenally more complex than man... God Himself. Of course, according to the Christian faith, I say again, God never came into existence at all, but has always existed.
Jesus said:
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Abortion: The Potential Person Argument
A “potential person” is precisely what it seems to be; a person who is not yet a person. Some consider a fetus in the womb to be “not yet a person”; and so a “potential person”. On the one hand, the potential person argument seems to serve either side of the debate. Pro-choice says “Sure, abort that baby, it’s only a potential person”, while pro-lifers will say “Don’t abort that baby, it’s a potential person!” But of these two statements, the latter seems more coherent to me. We have that saying “Don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched.” Why would we even need this warning? What would tempt a farmer to count his chickens before they’ve hatched? It’s the great value attached to chickens. Though we might say they’re only potential chickens, no farmer would go through his chicken coup smashing eggs on the ground. Rather, the farmer does all to protect the eggs themselves.
Now, the potential person argument really begins with the fact that future generations are only potential people, and so demonstrates that a potential person does not have the same rights to life as an actual person, else we’d be culpable for any form of family planning at all. A future person is dependent upon whether a couple choose to conceive. The argument then extends this idea by saying that a fetus in the womb of its mother is still only a potential person because it is dependent upon the mother’s womb, and upon the mother choosing to allow that child the use of her womb. But this argument doesn’t really follow. A child outside of the womb, even up to its teenage years, is dependent upon its parents care. Should we say that it’s only a “potential adult” and so doesn’t have the same right to life and care that an adult has?
But society demonstrates that it cares for the lives even of potential people. In the first instance, women who suffer a miscarriage are devastated by it because they understand it to be the loss of an actual child. Or we can consider that doctors have operated on infants with spina bifida in-utero. This is out of care for the life of another human being. And by establishing environmental conservation policies, for example, society even cares for the lives of future generations which haven’t yet been conceived.
But while we mess about with semantics to try and differentiate between “potential” and “actual” persons, the real issue is that at the point of conception we undeniably have an actual human life. Shouldn’t we rather discuss whether all human life should be equally respected, rather than whether a potential person (however we define it) has the same rights as an actual person? When life itself is the issue, people often say that pro-lifers contradict themselves when they condone the death penalty for criminals. But in that case we have someone who is guilty of a terrible crime. A child in their mother’s womb is completely innocent! If anything, they should have more of a right to life than anyone. Because, after all, guilt of sin is why there is any death at all. But a discussion of the death penalty is a topic for another day.
"The Lord hates hands that shed innocent blood" (Proverbs 6:16,17)
Now, the potential person argument really begins with the fact that future generations are only potential people, and so demonstrates that a potential person does not have the same rights to life as an actual person, else we’d be culpable for any form of family planning at all. A future person is dependent upon whether a couple choose to conceive. The argument then extends this idea by saying that a fetus in the womb of its mother is still only a potential person because it is dependent upon the mother’s womb, and upon the mother choosing to allow that child the use of her womb. But this argument doesn’t really follow. A child outside of the womb, even up to its teenage years, is dependent upon its parents care. Should we say that it’s only a “potential adult” and so doesn’t have the same right to life and care that an adult has?
But while we mess about with semantics to try and differentiate between “potential” and “actual” persons, the real issue is that at the point of conception we undeniably have an actual human life. Shouldn’t we rather discuss whether all human life should be equally respected, rather than whether a potential person (however we define it) has the same rights as an actual person? When life itself is the issue, people often say that pro-lifers contradict themselves when they condone the death penalty for criminals. But in that case we have someone who is guilty of a terrible crime. A child in their mother’s womb is completely innocent! If anything, they should have more of a right to life than anyone. Because, after all, guilt of sin is why there is any death at all. But a discussion of the death penalty is a topic for another day.
"The Lord hates hands that shed innocent blood" (Proverbs 6:16,17)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)