26 "You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes. 27 You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. 28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD" (Lev 19:26-28).This text is a one of several that are a favorite among skeptics. "Don't hear you lousy Christians preaching on this very much, do we? And you call yourself followers of the Bible!" Well, since I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God and means what it says, I think it is wise to examine ... what it says. So, what have we here?
First, I'd like to avoid the standard pitfalls. One common response is, "Ignore it; it's Old Testament." In fact, many make that argument and then carry it over to "A man shall not lie with a man as with a woman" and other biblical commands. They do the very thing the skeptic complains about and pick and choose what works and what doesn't. We don't want to pick and choose. The other problem occurs if we take this text and, just because we want to, say, "It's about making the Israelites separate" (or something like that). I believe that there are commands given to Israel for that purpose, but here's the problem in this context. If we say, "That's just for Israel", look at what else we're going to set aside.
"Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father" (Lev 19:3).And that's just a sampling. You see, if you say, "That hair cutting thing is just to make Israel separate", then you'll also need to say, "That 'honor your father and mother' thing and that whole prohibition against idolatry is just to make Israel separate. We can steal, oppress our neighbors, and do wrong to visitors because that was just to keep them separate, not Christians." It's the problem I have with those who say, "The prohibition against a man lying with a man as with a woman is a religious thing", because if you look at the context we'd also need to pile adultery, incest, and bestiality as perfectly acceptable behaviors as long as they weren't religious in nature. Doesn't work. Don't go there.
"Do not turn to idols" (Lev 19:4)
"You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another" (Lev 19:11).
"You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him" (Lev 19:13).
"When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong" (Lev 19:33).
So, avoiding those errors, where do we go? It is really verse 27 that catches all the attention. "Christians shouldn't be getting haircuts if they say they believe the Bible!" That's what it says, right? And, indeed, the (commendable) orthodox Jew has uncut locks of hair on the sides of his head and an uncut beard. I say "commendable" because of the attitude. "If that's what it says, that's what I'll do." Regardless of the text, that should be our attitude as well. But, does the text say that? Notice that it speaks of rounding off hair and marring the beard. That's not quite the same as cutting the sides of your hair or grooming a beard. These appear to be indications of something beyond a shave and a haircut. So, am I splitting hairs (a little humor there), or are there reasons to think that this may not be a de facto command not to shave the sides of your face?
As always, I recommend text and context. What do we learn from the context? Well, I put the immediate context in the quote above because, if you're paying attention, verse 27 is not a verse in a vacuum. It starts with a command ("You shall not...") and ends with a reason ("I am the Lord."). This structure of terminating in "I am the Lord" is repeated throughout the chapter. So we have Lev 19:2-3 tied together, verse 4 as a command, verses 5-10 tied together, and so forth. Each of these is completed in the statement, "I am the Lord." Thus, Lev 19:26-28 is a thought, a set of commands tied together by a central theme and punctuated with "I am the Lord." What is the central theme? It appears to be a central theme of false worship, including eating flesh with blood on it, fortune telling, and cutting or tattooing for the dead. In the midst of this is something about rounding hair and marring beards. These are all tied together. What ties them together? Most obvious is the reason to obey: "I am the Lord." But if these are all tied together and if you don't get mixed up by verse markings, you'll see a second item tying them all together: "for the dead".
"Wow, Stan," I can hear you saying, "that's really stretching it." Is it? Let's trace the idea of "for the dead". In Lev 21, God tells the priests, "No one shall make himself unclean for the dead." Among the ways listed in which the priests should not make themselves unclean for the dead is this: "They shall not make bald patches on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts on their body" (Lev 21:5). Hmmm, the same things we see in Lev 19. Then again in Deuteronomy, the repeat of the Law, we read, "You are the sons of the LORD your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead" (Deut 14:1). I don't think it's a stretch. I think it's the intent. Indeed, the vow of the Nazirites, intended to separate these further, included the command not to cut their hair. If no one was allowed to cut their hair already, what was the point of the vow? No, I don't think that the most reasonable reading of Leviticus 19:27 in context is that God was commanding His people not to cut their hair. It just doesn't fit.
The complaint of the skeptic is that we don't follow the Bible even though we claim to follow the Bible. I would argue that too often they're right ... and that ought to stop. Too often we dismiss stuff that shouldn't be dismissed. It's in there. Let's conform our lives to God's Word rather than vice versa. On the other hand, tying ourselves to a text that doesn't say what they think it says and trying to conform to it makes little sense either. This text commands that we don't perform some religious practices that were intended to honor the dead. We shouldn't eat flesh with blood on it (like the Zabians who regarded it the food of the devils) or seek divinations or mar your hair or beard for the dead (as the Arabians, according to Herodotus, did to imitate Bacchus) or cut or mark your body for the dead (as the Scythians did). Far from dismissing this as "Old Testament" or "That was just for Israel", I would argue that we, too, should avoid all of this as a matter of obedience to God. I simply suggest that we submit to what God says rather than to what skeptics argue it says out of context and content.
17 comments:
Amen! We SHOULD stick to what God says and keep things in text and context.
But how is that different than what I do over in Lev 18?
Dan Trabue: "But how is that different than what I do over in Lev 18?"
The question needs to be answered. I did it in this paragraph:
"You see, if you say, 'That hair cutting thing is just to make Israel separate', then you'll also need to say, 'That 'honor your father and mother' thing and that whole prohibition against idolatry is just to make Israel separate. We can steal, oppress our neighbors, and do wrong to visitors because that was just to keep them separate, not Christians.' It's the problem I have with those who say, 'The prohibition against a man lying with a man as with a woman is a religious thing', because if you look at the context we'd also need to pile adultery, incest, and bestiality as perfectly acceptable behaviors as long as they weren't religious in nature. Doesn't work. Don't go there."
If we say, "The context of Lev 18 is religious", then we would say, "So, the prohibition of a man lying with a man as with a woman is religious in nature, not normative." Fine. We would also say, "So are the prohibitions against uncovering your mother's nakedness, adultery, bestiality, and all the rest of that chapter." Now, I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't make the case that adultery and bestiality is a perfectly moral behavior as long as you don't do it in a religious manner, so why does this singular command -- "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" -- fall under religious concepts but none of the others do? It is inconsistent with the context. Inversely, in what sense does incest, uncovering nakedness, adultery, or bestiality come under a "for religious reasons" heading? Yet this one -- "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" -- does? In other words, it is necessary to rip this completely out of context to make it read what it reads "in context". That's how it's different. I read Leviticus 19 in context and retained the entire passage. You read Leviticus 18 "in context" and leave some while discarding others.
No, Stan. I read Lev - and the whole of the Bible - and I see that the Bible is God's Word alive. I see that the Bible is a book of TRUTHS, not rules.
I see that the Bible abundantly CLEARLY teaches the Truths and ideals we are to live by -
that we are to live lives of Grace, Love and Justice;
That we are NOT to harm innocent folk;
That we are to especially watch out for the least of these;
That we are to be respectful, kind, compassionate, considerate;
That we are NOT to be slanderous, gossipy or unkind...
I see these Truths and ideals and I see ANOTHER Truth: That everytime folk starting living legalistic lives, holding others accountable to rules and regulations and doing so in a way that lacks in grace, that each time that happens, folk have gotten away from the Truths of God. It happened regularly with the Israelis. It happened with the Pharisees and other religious hypocrites. It happened even within the church. And each time, the People were reminded that it is all about grace, not legalism. For the letter kills, but the Spirit brings life.
We are to live lives of grace by God's Holy Spirit, not nitpicky, legalistic lives.
I learned that in God's Word and I have seen that those lives, behaviors and actions that are motivated by the good, the pure, the love, the grace, the true, the just... that these are GOOD actions, Godly actions. I learned that we don't live by the rules of the OT or really ANY rules except the Rule of Love, and what a great rule that is.
But my point was, you have used your reasoning to move away from a wooden literal interpretation of this passage - and rightly so. And you've done it by studying the text and context, and rightly so. AND this is what I have done with Lev 18 and 20. I have not dismissed any line, but rather, am striving to interpret these in their immediate context, but also, in the context of the whole Bible and ESPECIALLY in light of Jesus' and the Gospel teachings of grace.
I am AGREEING with you that studying the text and context is VITAL or else you end up with deadly legalism. I'm just saying that this is EXACTLY what I have done in Lev 18 and 20. Not so different AT ALL than what you've done. Seems to me.
And this, dear Dan, is what I can't figure out. You claim that the best we have is "hunches" (You keep using that word; I do not think that word means what you think it means) and "subjective knowledge" and we can't really know for sure that what we know is true and that the Bible doesn't actually claim to be the Word of God and then you say something like "I see that the Bible abundantly CLEARLY teaches the Truths and ideals we are to live by."
Look. You can't know that I'm wrong any more than you can know that you're right. If I agree with you, you still won't know that you're right. If I disagree with you, you won't know that you're wrong. The best we have is subjective arguments that really end up entirely up to the individual. So, you asked "How is that different?" and I answered. Mission accomplished. Bending the idea of doing what God says into "leading legalistic lives" doesn't help the argument or solve the problem that you don't know for sure what you know. Done.
"I see that the Bible is a book of TRUTHS, not rules."
Ah, Danny boy! "...and thirdly the code is more of what you call guidelines than actual rules." -Capt. Barbossa
But then, you simply replace God's written mandates and prohibitions with a list of your own rules adjusted for your sensibilities. Nothing too definitive. Nothing too specific. You don't much care for how God wants us to represent goodness, but instead prefer your own sense of goodness. This way makes room for any behavior so long as it matches your ideas of "lives, behaviors and actions that are motivated by the good, the pure, the love, the grace, the true, the just..."
At the same time, behaviors you don't like, like going to war to ward off despotic dictators who seek to dominate though murder and oppression, this you abhor regardless of whether or not goodness, purity, love, grace, truth and justice motivates the action against the despot.
You NEED subjectivity in your interpretations in order to believe as you do. A self-less objective reading won't get you there.
"...holding others accountable to rules and regulations and doing so in a way that lacks in grace, "
But to you, one lacks grace for merely holding to the Biblical truth regarding a given behavior. To argue for that truth and insist that it still applies, is to lack grace. But here's a truth claim to which I maintain: few have begun such a defense in a graceless manner. But some have had their patience tested by cheap justifications for rejecting clearly stated Biblical teaching.
"...that each time that happens, folk have gotten away from the Truths of God."
I haven't. Stan hasn't. Neil hasn't. Bubba hasn't. YOU'RE pretty far away, but most people I've seen you debate have been pretty consistent with Christian teachings in their support of their positions.
(BTW, Dan. I'm preparing an answer to your comment that hasn't yet posted at my blog. Stay tuned.)
I'm a little worried about bring this up, but as I pointed out to Dan elsewhere when I tried the "the bible isn't a rule book" gambit, the Bible is (at least in part) a rule book. It is a book that contains a number of rules about how we should live in order to conform to God's perspective. Some of the rules were time and place specific, while others are not. Nonetheless, rules are there for us, mostly for our protection.
This concept of rules for our protection has been a major concern of mine for a long time. If we're simply discussing nice ways to interact and preferred methods of getting along, that's one thing. But if the Creator of the Universe has offered these things as a sort of Users Manual for human beings, then ignoring them isn't only unwise, it's dangerous. Like reading, "Do not get water on your keyboard" and thinking, "What a killjoy! I'll put water wherever I please!" It changes my motivation when pointing to what Scripture says is or is not sin. It isn't "to be moral", but to help myself and others avoid pain.
You're probably not posting my comments still, but...
but as I pointed out to Dan elsewhere when I tried the "the bible isn't a rule book" gambit, the Bible is (at least in part) a rule book.
I'd suggest that obviously, no, it's not.
Yes, there ARE sections of the Bible that contain rules. Rules for the OT people of Israel, for instance. Rules for living in NT community, for instance.
But the Bible itself is not designed to be (in whole or in part) a RULE BOOK for us. It is God's revealed Word to humanity. It shows how God has interacted with various peoples in history and how they interacted with God.
But we can see clearly and obviously that there was a repeated problem of people in the Bible trying to "live by the letter of the law," and that always always leads to death, not life.
For WE who are saved by God's grace, ARE SAVED BY GOD'S GRACE, not the letter of the law. Those who have tried to live by the letter of the law (think "the Pharisees") always get off track and miss the point of God's Way, which is GRACE, not legalism.
Some passages to consider:
For humanity was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for humanity...
~Jesus
Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ ..
~Jesus
They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
~Jesus
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant [ie, GRACE] — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life...
~Paul
Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are....
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things...
~Peter
And on and on. Repeatedly, folk in the Bible tried to treat Scripture as a rulebook and repeatedly, they missed the point.
Let us live by Grace, by the Spirit of God, not by a dogged and deadly rule-following, for that will likely miss the point.
Quite a central teaching of the Bible that we should embrace fully.
Dan, you keep accusing us of adhering to the rules set forth in as Scripture as a means of salvation. That just isn't the case. We don't adhere to the rules to become saved, but because we know that our Savior wants us to obey Him and we obey Him because we love Him. Now, if He hasn't set any rules to follow, how can we obey Him? Obedience requires rules to obey, otherwise you have no way of being obedient. We are agreed, following the rules doesn't produce salvation, but salvation produces following the rules. If you don't follow the rules, you aren't saved. Simple logic.
Five passages. I don't know that you could really find too many more that aren't simply part of the same teaching of any of those you listed. The point here is that living by the letter wasn't necessarily a major issue in Scripture but only that it happened. But none of those passages does anything to negate any of the laws, to make them meaningless or a buffet from which we can select a favorite or two and pretend we can call the other sinful behaviors good and holy because of the manner in which we might engage in them.
What's more, to point out that a sinful behavior is still a sinful behavior is not an example of living by the letter of the law. Saying it is is a sinful practice itself as it assumes what one cannot know about the heart of the speaker. As if that wasn't enough, there's a great distinction about holding a fellow human being accountable when they backslide versus defending the truth of God's Will against those who willfully distort it to satisfy worldly desires. Neither is living by the letter of the law.
It is also helpful to remember that Paul called the Law useful for us, and Jesus said of the two most important teachings, that the first is to love God and obey His commandments. Seems they both looked at Scripture as a rule book of sorts.
(So now I have TWO emails of Dan's to which I will respond.)
By Stan's leave...
David...
you keep accusing us of adhering to the rules set forth in as Scripture as a means of salvation.
Perhaps you can understand that when a fellow as orthodox as me (and others like me) are considered NOT Christian by you all, even though I have all the "essentials" (salvation by grace, through faith in Jesus the risen son of God, repentant sinners, etc) NOT because I reject the "essentials" but because I disagree with you all on some behaviors and attitudes, that it comes across very much as similar to the pharisees who'd keep people out of God's realm because of behaviors.
Do you not see that as similar? (That's a sincere question that I'd love to have answered, my friend.)
David...
That just isn't the case. We don't adhere to the rules to become saved, but because we know that our Savior wants us to obey Him and we obey Him because we love Him.
Great. Then we agree. I and my camp want to obey God, too. We just disagree with you all on some behaviors, as to whether they do or don't align with obedience to God.
And you will note that I never have condemned you all for seeking to obey God, but only for gracelessness/over-adherence to laws in the WAY that you do so, especially as it relates to other followers.
Marshall...
But none of those passages does anything to negate any of the laws, to make them meaningless
And it is not my intent to "negate any of the laws..." in their context. However, Jesus' teaching "the sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath..." seems to me to be very clearly giving the INTENT of the law.
Laws are not there to bust us down, to make us miserable, and certainly not to beat others over the heads with. The law is there to help remind us, to POINT US IN THE WAY in which is healthiest, most wholesome for us. The LAW, Jesus tells us, Is love God and love your neighbor.
All these little rules found throughout the Bible at specific times to specific peoples are there FOR THE PURPOSE of showing us how best to love God and love people. We don't steal from people because that does not show love. We don't pollute God's creation because that shows a disrespect for God and for people - a lack of love. We don't have indiscriminate sex with multiple partners because that shows a LACK of love for people and an unhealthy and arrogant sort of self-love.
The rules are in place to help us work our way through the Great Rules: Love God, Love people.
When we move from the rules helping us do that, to the rules getting in the way of doing that (and I'd argue that standing in the way of two folks in love engaging in a healthy, adult, respectful, loving marriage relationship does just that) then "the rule" has become oppression, not liberty, and oppression is not of love.
That would be my point.
When I read Dan T's comments I do so with an English accent...when he says stuff like:
Dan Trabue said...
"By Stan's leave..."
Sorry Dan, no harm intended. Just a little levity...
Dan T, you have been accused of not being a Christian because the only way we can know other people are believers is by their adherence to the Law. We know that God said that those that love Him obey Him, thus we can assume that those that disobey Him don't love Him. We are told that the Holy Spirit will show His people the Truth, so that when someone drastically turns from the Truth, we can assume the Holy Spirit is not with them. See, its not that these things save you, but are proof of salvation. As faith without works is dead, love without obedience is hate. Whether or not you claim to believe the "essentials" is not proof enough to other believers of your salvation, but your beliefs and actions point toward being saved or not. Even Jesus said there will be those that performed miracles in His name, and yet He never knew them. If people that perform miracles are turned away, why would we have any reason to believe that disobedient or detractors from the Truth are saved?
David...
you have been accused of not being a Christian because the only way we can know other people are believers is by their adherence to the Law.
Thank you very much for your answer, David, I appreciate it. But I must say, Wow.
Do you mean this? "Adherence to the law" as evidence of salvation?
David...
We know that God said that those that love Him obey Him, thus we can assume that those that disobey Him don't love Him.
And so, does that mean in those areas where YOU are wrong (ie, you believe X is good when in fact, it turns out to be wrong), that this is a sign that you don't love God?
No! I would not say that at all! I would say it is a sign that you are a flawed human being and I would say, THANK GOD FOR GRACE!
David...
We are told that the Holy Spirit will show His people the Truth, so that when someone drastically turns from the Truth, we can assume the Holy Spirit is not with them.
You are assuming, it seems to me David, a perfection not promised nor evidenced in the Bible or in the real world.
Every one in my church loves God and seeks to follow him. We hold our positions EXACTLY BECAUSE WE ARE SEEKING GOD'S WILL AND THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE GOD IS TEACHING. I would say that in our church more than any other church I've attended, this is true.
We WANT to follow God and be in God's Way.
Could we be mistaken? Sure, just as YOU could be mistaken. But we don't think so. We think the Word of God is abundantly clear on all our points that we hold to and we have prayed and believe this is the direction the Spirit is leading us.
Shall we start assuming that when SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH US ON A BEHAVIOR (as you and I disagree on some behaviors) that this is a sign that the "Holy Spirit is not with them..."? Where is the grace in that?
David...
Whether or not you claim to believe the "essentials" is not proof enough to other believers of your salvation, but your beliefs and actions point toward being saved or not.
My beliefs and actions? My belief is that God is the creator of the world, that we are sinners, that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus, the risen son of God.
I believe in repentance and making Jesus the Lord of your life.
I believe in loving God and loving my neighbor.
I believe in living lives of grace, looking out for the least of these, as taught by Jesus our Lord.
I believe in giving a cup of cold water, feeding the hungry, in helping the orphans and the foreigners and oppressed.
I believe in being a good dad, in being a faithful husband, in being a good neighbor and member of my community.
I believe in sharing, in sharing music, in taking good care of God's creation, in small (and big) acts of kindness.
I believe in standing opposed to oppression, to intolerance, to hatred, to causing physical and emotional harm to children, the sick, the elderly.
I believe in loving my enemy, in helping those in prison, in visiting the sick.
Where in all of that, David, have I gone wrong? If you are going to judge a person by their actions and beliefs, mine are consistent with Christian values.
I DISAGREE WITH YOU (and you with me) on the issue of marriage for gay folk. I see it as self-evidently Good and Moral and believe it to be something that God would obviously support. You believe otherwise.
Does that mean I should consider the Holy Spirit is not within you?
By your measures, it would seem that you would think that I should think that you are not saved.
But I don't think that measure is a good measure, brother. I believe you are saved and simply mistaken on that point. It happens.
Salvation does not guarantee us perfection. Sometimes we ARE wrong and being wrong is not "evidence" of no salvation.
David, what does the BIBLE say are signs of Christianity?
There is the Fruit of the Spirit, mentioned in Galatians...
the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
I can attest that you can find these at my church.
There is "love of brothers" as found in I John...
Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light...
And I would ask: WHO has been treating the Other here with love? WHO has embraced the Other as "Brothers"? I have disagreed with you all, yes, but I have strived to do so respectfully and sticking to the points, rather than engaging in personal attacks. Who, here, has engaged in personal attacks? Not me, my friend. Look at my words, I'm just raising questions and making points for consideration.
I don't know about you, but I am not a perfect man, nor am I a perfect Christian. Far from it. But these Christian ideals ARE something I strive to live to, by God's grace. That I disagree with you or you with me on a few points is not evidence that the Holy Spirit is not within them.
By biblical and orthodox Christian measures, my brother, I AM a Christian. And "neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate me or us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
And (perhaps foolishly), I put Dan's last tirade up to give him his say. He has been answered repeatedly on this and doesn't like the answers. Repeating them won't make any difference. So please stop feeding the trolls. Unless there is something more to be said about the post, let's allow this comment thread to die.
Post a Comment