Interpreting Leviticus
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:11 pm
I recently came upon the following in a discussion regarding the guidelines set down in Leviticus.
Is this the common scholarly understanding of these chapters of Leviticus?
How does one tell them apart?
Can statements in the Bible be used to support the idea that the "Civil" laws became defunct at a certain point in time or certain event?
Can statements in the Bible be used to support the idea that "Ritual" law was "fulfilled" in the death of Jesus?
How the hell can "Ritual law" be "fulfilled," anyway?
Two more comments, included for the purpose of preventing unnecessary explanation (or to elicit what anybody might think is necessary additional explanation):
1. I will not be responding to this person as it would likely out me as a nonbeliever in my unsafe circle.
2. I still think there's something to be said for God passing down these laws that are -- by anybody's standard -- absurd. After all, even the person who posted the above paragraph is downplaying the fact that these were all God's laws. (I'm extremely tempted to ask this person that if God can simply change what is lawful when, how does he know he simply hasn't missed God's last memo?)
I have these questions:There were three legal structures in ancient Israel: Civil law (the laws governing day to day life including criminal law and business law); Ritual or Ceremonial (Cultic) law (the laws governing religious practice); and Moral law (those laws that stand forever and are not governed by the other two, such as the Ten Commandments). The Civil law passed away when Isreal ceased to be a nation. It has little or no bearing on us today. The Ritual Law was fulfilled in the death of Jesus. The Moral Law stands forever. Homosexuality is dealt with in both the civil law and the moral law. The moral law regarding homosexuality being an abomination to God still stands.
Is this the common scholarly understanding of these chapters of Leviticus?
How does one tell them apart?
Can statements in the Bible be used to support the idea that the "Civil" laws became defunct at a certain point in time or certain event?
Can statements in the Bible be used to support the idea that "Ritual" law was "fulfilled" in the death of Jesus?
How the hell can "Ritual law" be "fulfilled," anyway?
Two more comments, included for the purpose of preventing unnecessary explanation (or to elicit what anybody might think is necessary additional explanation):
1. I will not be responding to this person as it would likely out me as a nonbeliever in my unsafe circle.
2. I still think there's something to be said for God passing down these laws that are -- by anybody's standard -- absurd. After all, even the person who posted the above paragraph is downplaying the fact that these were all God's laws. (I'm extremely tempted to ask this person that if God can simply change what is lawful when, how does he know he simply hasn't missed God's last memo?)