Leviticus - Both the book, and specific passages

Hi @KaieraAi A good approach to the Old Testament is found in John13.15: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him". It's good to focus on how the Lord Jesus is revealed in the New Testament. Hebrews wonderfully shows how the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus is the fulfilment of the Old Testament. It won't help to let unbelieving doubters underline our trust in what God reveals.

Here's a great passage:

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.

7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name." (Hebrews 13.4-15)

KaieraAi said:

That means that the laws of the old testament should not contradict anything that Jesus taught.

Click to expand...

Very perceptive. Before addressing your specifics, I want to elaborate on this foundational point you make.

Galatians 4.4 tells us that Jesus was born a Jew, "under the law." Hebrews 4.15 tells us HE was without sin. For a Jewish male to be without sin, he would have had to be in complete accord with every applicable command for his entire life. That includes the prohibition of teaching against the Law.

So anything that our Lord taught that is understood to violate Moses is a misunderstanding.

KaieraAi said:

Leviticus 21:11 - He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother.

Click to expand...

This statement was for the high priest at a specific time.
Leviticus 21:10 And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;

This wasn't just for any priest or even the high priest for the whole year.

As for those verses about the lame or disfigured, meditate on these verses.
2 Samuel 5:8 And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.
2 Samuel 9:3 And the king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Saul, that I may shew the kindness of God unto him? And Ziba said unto the king, Jonathan hath yet a son, which is lame on his feet.
2 Samuel 9:13 So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem: for he did eat continually at the king's table; and was lame on both his feet.

That "misunderstanding" was formulated 1900 years ago and has been church doctrine for that long.

KaieraAi said:

Now, I can understand that a lot of the laws of Leviticus were social laws. The issue I have is that all the laws are written as if they were told to the Israelites by God himself. So it seems wrong that God would allow laws about cleanliness and uncleanliness to let people mistreat others. Following this logic, Jesus didn't abide by these laws, obviously, as he helped many people who were socially outcast or considered unclean.

Click to expand...

As much as the church perverted the teachings of Jesus into antinomianism (against the Law) certain elements of Jewish culture (Pharisees and Sadducees) twisted and added on to the plain meaning of the Law. In fact the Law specifically says NOT to oppress the poor, foreigners and the "unclean."

Doug Melven said:

This statement was for the high priest at a specific time.
Leviticus 21:10 And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;

This wasn't just for any priest or even the high priest for the whole year.

Click to expand...

That is very true. Only at the time of the Yom Kippur sacrifice.

Had our Lord tried to do any of that, He would have sinned since He was from the tribe of Judah and not Levi.

KaieraAi said:

This implies that God won't leave us no matter what. But multiple times in the old testament, it talks about people being cut off from God's presence if they sin.

Click to expand...

Not just any sins, but specific sins that destroy the Covenant.

Think of it like a marriage. You say vows "till death do us part." But we all know there are certain actions (having an affair) that can destroy a marriage. That is what being cut off is all about. God will not leave us; but we can, thru repeated acts of spiritual adultery, leave God.

KaieraAi said:

I appreciate your addition, but I feel it doesn't fully answer my questions. I'd like some historical clarification, if there is some, both to help myself and to help any others I know who might be wary of faith due to some scriptures like this that could seem... deterrent to people who don't believe, you know?

For instance, the scripture you added;

This implies that God won't leave us no matter what. But multiple times in the old testament, it talks about people being cut off from God's presence if they sin. I believe that Jesus is the Lord and the teachings of the New Testament are how we are supposed to live, I just need some clarity about the moral implications of the Old Testament Laws, and if they can truly be God's Word if they boast some things that seem unforgiving, and in direct contradiction to what Jesus, the Son of God, would do.

Click to expand...

I think I already addressed what I took you to imply. You said just now: "if they can truly be God's Word"... the Job 13.15 is a good attitude to take. There will always be doubters and critics; we need to turn away from this mindset.

We may remember also that the New Testament believer is under grace; Galatians shows this clearly.

Hebrews 12.18-24 is a very wonderful passage:

"For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, 19And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: 20(For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: 21And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake. ) 22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant..."

This is not directly related to your questions, but you got all the way to Leviticus before encountering troublesome scriptures where hurtful things happen to people God loves?

Disclaimer: by "troublesome" I only mean "requires further study/understanding/context".

Remember that Israel was to be a light showing what was right and what was sin to to the other nations. Therefore, these extreme punishments reveal how serious sin is.

It reveals too why we need Jesus and his sacrifice, once and for all, is shown through this system.

Don't get too bogged down during your first reading of the OT in full. It fits together wonderfully but there is a lot to understand.

I recommend listening to the Bible Project videos too. It might help understand the overview of what you are reading. However, no matter how many times you read there is always more understanding to gain. It knits together in a lovely way over time.

KaieraAi,

You have some great questions here, so I'm just going to plow into them, and I'll try to keep my initial comments brief. Then, if you need for me to elaborate further, I'll be happy to do so. Also, if I say that I disagree with you on something, try not to take it personally. It just means that I think there are a few nuances in these passages (or within the overall context of Leviticus itself) that need to be noticed and come into intertextual play in our hermneutical investigation.

KaieraAi said:

So, I do one of those bible in one year devotionals, right? And I'm in Leviticus. There are a lot of things that just don't align with new-testament teachings, or the way that I have been lead to treat others. So I want to go over some of these and my misconceptions. I understand that we are not expected to live by these laws now, but some of them seem hurtful to people that God is supposed to love.

My overall argument is that when Jesus came, he told us that he fulfilled the law. Furthermore, Jesus's death on the cross didn't just change things for people moving forward, it also was a universal act of forgiveness and sacrifice for all mankind past and present. That means that the laws of the old testament should not contradict anything that Jesus taught. So I need some clarification, I think. Maybe some historical context? The verses will be posted below.

Click to expand...

Well, KA, I'm not so sure that nothing in the laws of the Old Testament should contradict anything that Jesus taught.

First - Clean and unclean

Click to expand...

Now, I can understand that a lot of the laws of Leviticus were social laws. The issue I have is that all the laws are written as if they were told to the Israelites by God himself. So it seems wrong that God would allow laws about cleanliness and uncleanliness to let people mistreat others. Following this logic, Jesus didn't abide by these laws, obviously, as he helped many people who were socially outcast or considered unclean.

I get that this society existed before soap was a thing, and it was a way to keep people from getting sick, but why the added insult of making life so much more difficult for these 'unclean' people?

Click to expand...

I think the first thing to notice here is that the writer of the Torah presents all of this social stigmatizing as a part of a supernatural covenant with God. So, I think what is often implied in the O.T. is that God would provide healing for those so afflicted if they obeyed the Law---which is kind of summarized in that bit on the Blessings and the Curses in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.

Secondly, from a Christian standpoint, we may want to see that Old Testament distinctions of this sort--between clean and unclean--play into a typology between being on the outside of God's grace (i.e. spiritually unclean in sin without Christ) and inside God's grace (i.e. spiritually clean in Christ through faith and repentance). Of course, there's more to all of this, but this, I think, is the short version.

Second - Putting People to Death

Click to expand...

Many of the laws written in Leviticus would lead to death if they were broken. These included, but were not limited to homosexuality, divination, blasphemy, and adultery/incest. Now, if God loves all of his people, and if Jesus died for our sins so that all people can repent, no matter how bad their sins, why would the old law allow these people to be killed? Why wouldn't they be given any chance to repent? Did God really tell his people to kill one another for their sins?


Specific Scripture

Leviticus 21:11 - He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother.

So, priests weren't allowed to be in the same room as dead people? Would this imply that they wouldn't be allowed to help prepare the body for burial, say goodbye, ect? Why is this considered defiling? Why was being 'clean' so much more important than caring for others?

Leviticus 21:18-21 - No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not com near to offer the food of his God.

Why would God push away his own people due to defects? We cannot control these things, some people are just born with defect, so why would God not allow them to worship him? Doesn't God love everyone? This seems to alienate who can and cannot worship God based only on physical appearance.

Leviticus 24:13-17 - Then the Lord said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

Once again, what about repentance? What exactly did they mean by blaspheme? Was is as simple as taking the Lord's name in vain or what he specifically hurling curses at God? Even then, if a person is cursing God, it means they don't understand His love for them. Why should they be killed? How will that help or make it clear?

Leviticus 24:19-20 - Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.

Some people argue that the old testament compliments the new testament, but this is in exact opposition to what Jesus says. He specifically tells us to turn the other cheek, and not follow the 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' rhetoric. So why is this a command from God?


These are the main ones I'm struggling with right now, but there is more. I'm going to continue to look up historical context and meditate on this scripture, but obviously, some help with all of this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all so much in advance. <3

Click to expand...

Two things on the topics you have listed above. One, the central theme in both Testaments is that sin against our Holy God leads to, and/or deserves death. What we need to realize is that some sins were given heavier penalties than others, showing that some priorities were present within the holiness code of the O.T. However, in many ways, the O.T. sacrifices look forward to the final provision for mediation between sinners and God which we find in Christ, a provision which of course has given us complete atoning for our through Jesus' death on the cross.

As for not taking an eye for an eye, the intent of this law actually was to prevent people from going overboard in attempting to apply their intuitions about justice. It was not uncommon at all in the ancient world (i.e. Mesopotamian empires) for people to think it just to punish someone else in a much heavier dose than was done to them. For them, if you knock out someone's tooth, you just might have found yourself running for for life or limb.

Second, I think many people are at a disadvantage today because we have been thoroughly indoctrinated by our post-Enlightenment political paradigms, so we tend to see the O.T. as "unfair," and we do this without thinking thoroughly through the philosophical problems which are inherent within our modern moral intuitions. In fact, our ethics today, even those pertaining to natural rights or human rights, cull bits and pieces from the biblical notions of freedom and justice, but at the same time, those same sets of Western ethics today are shot through by yanking God out of these moral frameworks, and many of the ethical considerations people presently have are close to being empty. So, this is something to think about ... however strange it may sound.

I know this is a lot to chew on, but let me know what you think, and we can proceed from there.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Dave-W said:

HE was without sin. For a Jewish male to be without sin, he would have had to be in complete accord with every applicable command for his entire life. That includes the prohibition of teaching against the Law.

So anything that our Lord taught that is understood to violate Moses is a misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

I do not claim to have a satisfying answer to your questions, KaieraAi, and I suspect that answers that satisfy me would not satisfy you. But a thought occurs to me after reading DaveW's post. Perhaps we have misunderstood how God defines a "sin." Jesus was soundly taken to task by the religious rulers of his day for not keeping certain rules of the Sabbath (like picking grains of wheat while walking through wheat fields). Jesus' reply was not to rubbish the rules so much as to put things back into proportion - "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." And on one occasion he referred to David eating the sacred bread in the Sanctuary that was reserved for the priests, and in that context seemed to condone David's behaviour. Perhaps, because we are such total sinners, we need rules and regulations simply to be able to function as a society. That moves the "moral question" back a step - is it morally wrong to break a stupid regulation. (I read for example that in Fergus, it is against local byelaws to wear baggy pants. Is it a sin to break this byelaw?)

My father made another kind of distinction using 'jaywalking' as an example. In many juristictions this is an offence that is punishable. But is it sin? to what extent is it a moral violation? A lot depends on your own views. Where I live, walking across the road when the traffic light is red, is against regulations, but it is not punishable. So, if I willingly and consciously wait a couple of minutes for the red light to turn green in the middle of the night when there is no vehicle traffic in sight, am I submitting my own mental faculties, common sense and personal maturity to a machine (by definition a dehumanising act and away from the full maturity as a creature made in God's image) or am I being a good citizen "obeying the law?" (remember the law, however good in itself and its purpose leads to death - see Romans). Then there is a sense that if you can't act in "good faith" (full of doubt, or of weak conscience) it is sin. If it is not "in love" it is of no value in God's eyes. Get's complicated, doesn't it?

In the sermon on the mount Jesus went much deeper into the very essence of the law - to hate your brother is already equivalent to murder, etc. But he also said that "because of the hardness of their hearts" God allowed divorce even though it was against his wishes. In the situation prevailing in those early days, it was common for punishments to be extremely harsh in relation to the offence - a bit like excessive punishments in Victorian England - so that "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" could be said to be a principle that outlawed punishments in excess of the severity of the offense - one could not extract greater revenge or punishment than the offense itself. Jesus took things more than one step farther, with his "love your enemies, bless them that curse you."

I suspect that somethings that we think are horrific sins, are not such in God's eyes, whereas other things that we think are "not so bad" are very far short of God's will and therefore sin in His eyes. What is particularly on my own conscience these days are the many things that I believe I should be doing, but aren't:- sins of omission. I suspect that I am often not even aware of what God is whispering in my ear or pushing into my face that I should do or say - because I have not been cultivating my sense of his voice and prodding. Then I think maybe I am thinking too academically about solving scriptural difficulties and not paying enough attention to God's direct voice to me - which needs more prayer, and sometimes just accepting things I don't fully comprehend in the Scriptures.

Let's start with this verse because everything concerning the law will be built on understanding how Jesus fulfilled this law.

"Leviticus 21:11 - He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother.

So, priests weren't allowed to be in the same room as dead people? Would this imply that they wouldn't be allowed to help prepare the body for burial, say goodbye, etc? Why is this considered defiling? Why was being 'clean' so much more important than caring for others?"

In the beginning, when Adam and Eve were enjoying the Garden of Eden, they were told to NOT eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or they will die.

This is the reason that there was a law that said touching a dead body would defile you. Death is the fulfillment of the curse and recognizing that death is a consequence of sin is what the law is teaching the people.

Therefore, we can see that when Jesus is teaching that He is the fulfillment of the law, this is synonymous with saying that He is removing the curse or redeeming us from the curse (Matthew 5:17-20).

Paul tries to explain this in Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—"

; and Galatians 4:4-5 "But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those under the Law, that we might receive our adoption as sons."

Paul is teaching how this law in Leviticus is fulfilled through Christ. However, he is teaching this lesson to a Gentile audience as well as a Jewish audience who do not know this law and for whom this law doesn't have a meaning to them.

Therefore, it is not essential for him to expand on the connection in a time when a Gentile audience would not have had the same access to Old Testament writings that we have today.

Everything else about how the law is fulfilled in Christ is built upon this same principle. However, this law in particular creates the most direct connection to the curse that makes it an easier place to start.

KaieraAi said:

So, I do one of those bible in one year devotionals, right? And I'm in Leviticus. There are a lot of things that just don't align with new-testament teachings, or the way that I have been lead to treat others. So I want to go over some of these and my misconceptions. I understand that we are not expected to live by these laws now, but some of them seem hurtful to people that God is supposed to love.

My overall argument is that when Jesus came, he told us that he fulfilled the law. Furthermore, Jesus's death on the cross didn't just change things for people moving forward, it also was a universal act of forgiveness and sacrifice for all mankind past and present. That means that the laws of the old testament should not contradict anything that Jesus taught. So I need some clarification, I think. Maybe some historical context? The verses will be posted below.

Click to expand...

Hello,

I completely agree that everything that Jesus taught was in accordance with the OT and that he did not sin in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by adding or subtracting his own commands. "To fulfill the Law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon 2c3). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law in Matthew 5, this is precisely what he then proceeded to do six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it. In Galatians 5:14, loving your neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to obeying the Law as it should be obeyed, and refers to something countless people have done, not to something unique to Christ. Likewise, Galatians 6:2 says that bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, which refers to obeying it as it should be obeyed. In Romans 15:18-19, it says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, which again referred to causing Gentiles to become fully obedient to it in word and in deed.

First - Clean and unclean

Click to expand...

Now, I can understand that a lot of the laws of Leviticus were social laws. The issue I have is that all the laws are written as if they were told to the Israelites by God himself. So it seems wrong that God would allow laws about cleanliness and uncleanliness to let people mistreat others. Following this logic, Jesus didn't abide by these laws, obviously, as he helped many people who were socially outcast or considered unclean.

I get that this society existed before soap was a thing, and it was a way to keep people from getting sick, but why the added insult of making life so much more difficult for these 'unclean' people?

Click to expand...

Jews often became ritually unclean through no fault of their own and regularly went through cycles of being ritually pure and unclean, so this was a normal part of society and was not intended to cause anyone to be mistreated. It mostly prevented people from having access to the temple until they had cleansed themselves.

Second - Putting People to Death

Click to expand...

Many of the laws written in Leviticus would lead to death if they were broken. These included, but were not limited to homosexuality, divination, blasphemy, and adultery/incest. Now, if God loves all of his people, and if Jesus died for our sins so that all people can repent, no matter how bad their sins, why would the old law allow these people to be killed? Why wouldn't they be given any chance to repent? Did God really tell his people to kill one another for their sins?

Click to expand...

The Jews do not have a history of putting someone to death every time the Law prescribed it, but rather they often imposed a fine instead. The harshness of the prescribed penalty was to show the seriousness of the offense, while the lighter penalty given was to show the mercy of God. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are weightier matters of the Law, so if those attributes of God do not characterize our obedience to the Law, then we are not obeying it correctly. The goal of punishment is to act as a deterrent and to bring about corrective action and the goal of mercy is to delay punishment in the preferred hope that someone will bring about corrective action on their own without punishment being necessary. However, when we receive mercy were expected to change how we behave, and as with the parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:21-35, the full punishment can be reinstated if that expectation is not met. So the people who were executed were those who were unrepentant and did not value mercy.

Specific Scripture

Click to expand...

Leviticus 21:11 - He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother.

So, priests weren't allowed to be in the same room as dead people? Would this imply that they wouldn't be allowed to help prepare the body for burial, say goodbye, ect? Why is this considered defiling? Why was being 'clean' so much more important than caring for others?

Click to expand...

In Leviticus 21:10, it speaks specifically in regard to the High Priest, not to priests in general. The High Priest had an increased level of holiness, so it was important for them not to become defiled.

Leviticus 21:18-21 - No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not com near to offer the food of his God.

Click to expand...

Why would God push away his own people due to defects? We cannot control these things, some people are just born with defect, so why would God not allow them to worship him? Doesn't God love everyone? This seems to alienate who can and cannot worship God based only on physical appearance.

Click to expand...

The animals and the priests needed to be without defect or blemish because they are pictures of Jesus, who was without defect or blemish.

Leviticus 24:13-17 - Then the Lord said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

Click to expand...

Once again, what about repentance? What exactly did they mean by blaspheme? Was is as simple as taking the Lord's name in vain or what he specifically hurling curses at God? Even then, if a person is cursing God, it means they don't understand His love for them. Why should they be killed? How will that help or make it clear?

Click to expand...

I think when someone curses their creators, either their parents or God, they know what they are doing. It amounts to them wishing that they had never been born, so putting them to death is doing their best to arrange that. In the Bible, a person's name had much more to do with who they were as a person and what their reputation was than what they were referred to as. In Numbers 6:27, it speaks about God putting His name on His people, so is almost exactly like a man who puts his last name on his wife when they got married. If she were to be unfaithful to him and do things that would lower his reputation in the eyes of others, then she would be taking his last name in vain.

Leviticus 24:19-20 - Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.

Click to expand...

Some people argue that the old testament compliments the new testament, but this is in exact opposition to what Jesus says. He specifically tells us to turn the other cheek, and not follow the 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' rhetoric. So why is this a command from God?

Click to expand...

Whenever Jesus quoted Scripture, he proceeded it by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what the people had heart being taught about the Law, he proceeded it by saying "you have heard that it was said" so the emphasis on the different form a communication is important. Jesus was not speaking against or making changes to what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the Law correcting what was wrongly being taught about it. For example:

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

While the Law certainly instructs us to love our neighbor and the stranger as ourselves (Leviticus 19:18, 34), it does not instruct us to hate our enemies, so that is what he was correcting. In Leviticus 19:17, it instructs us not to hate our brother, so again Jesus was teaching nothing new. The command not to look at a married woman with lust in our hearts is simply the correct application of the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and coveting in our hearts, so Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by adding to or subtracting from what the Father had commanded. The command for an eye for eye was given as a standard that was meant to be used as fair sentencing by judges so that the punishment was equal to the crime, but it was not intended to be used in personal matters to justify revenge.

And again, the Jews have history of imposing a fine instead.

“If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. 31 Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death.

The Jews interpreted these verses in the Talmud Bava Kama 83b-84a as the exception proving the rule that people could pay a ransom in any case except murder.

These are the main ones I'm struggling with right now, but there is more. I'm going to continue to look up historical context and meditate on this scripture, but obviously, some help with all of this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all so much in advance. <3

Click to expand...

At our website we have a sermon series on Finding Messiah in the Torah, which is taught with an awareness of the Jewish cultural context. I highly recommend the part on Finding Messiah in Leviticus, though I also recommend the other studies and articles found there:

The Book of Leviticus- Torah audio teaching Rabbi Stan Farr

KaieraAi said:

So, I do one of those bible in one year devotionals, right? And I'm in Leviticus. There are a lot of things that just don't align with new-testament teachings, or the way that I have been lead to treat others. So I want to go over some of these and my misconceptions. I understand that we are not expected to live by these laws now, but some of them seem hurtful to people that God is supposed to love.

My overall argument is that when Jesus came, he told us that he fulfilled the law. Furthermore, Jesus's death on the cross didn't just change things for people moving forward, it also was a universal act of forgiveness and sacrifice for all mankind past and present. That means that the laws of the old testament should not contradict anything that Jesus taught. So I need some clarification, I think. Maybe some historical context? The verses will be posted below.

First - Clean and unclean

Now, I can understand that a lot of the laws of Leviticus were social laws. The issue I have is that all the laws are written as if they were told to the Israelites by God himself. So it seems wrong that God would allow laws about cleanliness and uncleanliness to let people mistreat others. Following this logic, Jesus didn't abide by these laws, obviously, as he helped many people who were socially outcast or considered unclean.

I get that this society existed before soap was a thing, and it was a way to keep people from getting sick, but why the added insult of making life so much more difficult for these 'unclean' people?

Second - Putting People to Death

Many of the laws written in Leviticus would lead to death if they were broken. These included, but were not limited to homosexuality, divination, blasphemy, and adultery/incest. Now, if God loves all of his people, and if Jesus died for our sins so that all people can repent, no matter how bad their sins, why would the old law allow these people to be killed? Why wouldn't they be given any chance to repent? Did God really tell his people to kill one another for their sins?

Specific Scripture

Leviticus 21:11 - He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother.

So, priests weren't allowed to be in the same room as dead people? Would this imply that they wouldn't be allowed to help prepare the body for burial, say goodbye, ect? Why is this considered defiling? Why was being 'clean' so much more important than caring for others?

Leviticus 21:18-21 - No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not com near to offer the food of his God.

Why would God push away his own people due to defects? We cannot control these things, some people are just born with defect, so why would God not allow them to worship him? Doesn't God love everyone? This seems to alienate who can and cannot worship God based only on physical appearance.

Leviticus 24:13-17 - Then the Lord said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

Once again, what about repentance? What exactly did they mean by blaspheme? Was is as simple as taking the Lord's name in vain or what he specifically hurling curses at God? Even then, if a person is cursing God, it means they don't understand His love for them. Why should they be killed? How will that help or make it clear?

Leviticus 24:19-20 - Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.

Some people argue that the old testament compliments the new testament, but this is in exact opposition to what Jesus says. He specifically tells us to turn the other cheek, and not follow the 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' rhetoric. So why is this a command from God?


These are the main ones I'm struggling with right now, but there is more. I'm going to continue to look up historical context and meditate on this scripture, but obviously, some help with all of this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all so much in advance. <3

Click to expand...

Ok, so your going through Leviticus, one of the things I found very helpful is an outline. Perhaps you would care to consider something like this:

Lev. 1: Burnt Offerings
Lev. 2: Firstfruits Offerings
Lev. 3: Peace Offerings
Lev. 4: Sin Offerings
Lev. 5: Trespass Offerings
Lev. 6: Sacrificial Laws 1
Lev. 7: Sacrificial Laws 2
Lev. 8: Consecration of the Priests
Lev. 9: Ordination of the Priests

First there are the laws of Levitical sacrifice and then the priests are ordained to that ministry. As the sacrifice is laid upon the alter and the priest are fully consecrated a fire comes from 'before the Lord' and consumes the oblation. That fire could never be allowed to go out, the fire was sacred. This is readily related to New Testament concepts requiring, for instance, becoming a living sacrifice:


Leviticus can be summed up with one call to, 'be holy as I am holy'. Sanctification is key.

Grace and peace,
Mark

The solution (or at least a good start in forming an answer) to all of these questions is the answer to the following... question:

What does it mean "the law is spiritual" (Rom. 7:14) and the "letter kills" (2 Cor.3:6)

- Edit -

Hint from 1 Cor. 9:

9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn (Deut. 25:4). Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Wow, you are a thoughtful person! Such questions. That is wonderful how perceptive you are. I have no idea how to answer your question of the feasts. I do know that for certain feasts the Bible says they needed to be clean to partake in them. So I don't think they were. I would be interested to know if they could and why or not.