Came across <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/07/19/put_away_your_bible_justice_the_new_religious_freedom_arguments_are_neither/" target="_blank">this post</a> on Salon today. The author mashes in a bunch of bible verses to conclude the irrelevance of the bible. As always I wonder why seldom do these 'authors of liberty' never say anything about Islam or the Quran? While his arguments are not new, it certainly reminds me of this email circulated around 2000.
<blockquote>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 uncleanLess (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.</blockquote>
That was over 15 years ago. Though contextually different, the ignorance and accusations have not changed. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
It is not an open secret that mainstream Christianity prefers to focus on the New Testament in favor against the laws of Moses as common spiritual feeding to the flock. As much as they are easier to digest, we tend to forget where Jesus and Paul themselves got their 'thinking' from: the Torah. It is only right to clarify the very teachings that Jesus himself referred to, and also certainly did not <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+5%3A17&version=NIV">nullify</a>. I am glad that this post (and many others) exist because they remind us of something Paul told us thousands of years ago, that we will be mocked at for our faith in a supposedly non-existent God, for following a supposedly outdated teaching that are supposedly completely irrelevant in this day and age to come (2 Timothy 3:12).
<blockquote>An illustrative confession. I would like to arrange a biblical marriage for myself. That is, a flat-out, no-holds-barred "traditional" marriage purely and distinctly in accordance with hallowed biblical criteria. Of course, I plan to follow Genesis 2:24 and "cleave" unto my wife. I'm supposed to become "of one flesh" with her. But note that contrary to Pope John Paul's statement, the Bible doesn't anywhere say I can have only one wife. Just after the above-cited verse, we read in Genesis 4:19 about Lamech, who took two wives. The patriarch Abraham - the founding father of three world religions - had two, and King Solomon had 700. So I'm going to marry as many times as I like, and "cleave" unto each one in turn, depending on the night of the week.</blockquote>
There were multiple cases recorded in scriptures where these seemingly colorful characters had multiple wives and even incestuous partners (Cain comes to mind). While the bible is awfully silent on 'why' polygamy and incest took place, these were after all historical records of early Jewish civilization, and were never meant to be taken as distinct instructions nor examples meant for believers to follow after. The teachings of Islam speak about taking multiple (also incestuous) partners. Emperors from ancient China were also known to have practiced polygamy and ownership of concubines. Why not follow the ancient examples of other civilizations as well? Why is polygamy largely banned across most of modern civilization? Let's not also dismiss that the direct instructions coming from the bible pertaining to marriage is consistently singular; Genesis 2:24 does not say 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wives. Ephesians 5:23 does not say 'For the husband is the head of h
is wives'. Titus 1:6 qualifies leaders of the church by being a 'husband of one wife'. Prohibitions to incest are found in Leviticus 18:8-18, 20:11-21, and Deuteronomy 22:30. We are told in Ephesians 5:5 to be sure of this: that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Solomon 'had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.' Did God 'allow' Solomon to have so multiple sexual partners? Certainly. Does 'allowing' mean the same as 'approval'? I can certainly allow my children to be spoiled (to a certain extent) by their grandparents but at the same time completely disapprove their actions. Let's not forget there were also consequences to Solomon's marital lifestyle which were in direct violation to God's law.
<blockquote>I also plan on following the examples laid down in the Good Book and helping myself to the sexual favors of our domestic help, which I will not, however, enslave, as Leviticus 25:44-46 allows. If any putative brother of mine should kick the bucket, I will immediately wed his wife, as the Bible (Genesis 38:8-10) commands me to do, on pain of death. (Strangely, the only known death-penalty victim of this obscure biblical statute was the hapless Onan, who has undeservedly gone down in history as the world's most notorious masturbator, when, in fact, he was only a spiteful practitioner of coitus interruptus.)</blockquote>
Leviticus 25:44-46 is citing a part of the prohibition to buy Israelite's as permanent slaves. It speaks of only allowing Israelites to be purchase on a temporary bases as 'hired hands' (v40). After seven years at the year of Jubilee, the Israelite slave is released and must be paid for his labor. It certainly does allow purchasing of heathens as 'hired hands', of which many a family I personally know still do have in their households even till this day. Let's not miss the whole heart of the matter: Leviticus 25:43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. This certainly also means not helping ourselves to the sexual favors of our domestic help.
Genesis 38 does not 'command us' to immediately wed our deceased brothers wife. As it was written, God condemned Onan because he refused to fulfil his duty to provide an heir for his brother. It was the heart of the matter that led to the consequence, just as the example of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5.
<blockquote>If any of my proliferating wives dare rebuke me, I'll thunder words from Ephesians 5:22-33 at them. They must, that verse says, submit unto me "as unto the Lord" Himself. And if they should behave foolishly, I intend to beat them, as is stipulated in Proverbs 10:12-31.</blockquote>
Ephesians 5 proposes a far greater calLg to husbands than belittLg their wives. Husbands are called to love their wives as 'Christ loved His church. Christ gave his life for the church, and we certainly too (as husbands) should be wilLg to give up much (even our lives) for our wife. We are to love our wives 'as unto the Lord' in his example.
I'm not sure how <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+10">Proverbs 10:12-31</a> speaks about beating up my foolishly behaving wife.
Hatred stirs up conflict,
but love covers over all wrongs.
Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning,
but a rod is for the back of one who has no sense.
The wise store up knowledge,
but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.
The wealth of the rich is their fortified city,
but poverty is the ruin of the poor.
The wages of the righteous is life,
but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death.
Whoever heeds discipLe shows the way to life,
but whoever ignores correction leads others astray.
Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips
and spreads slander is a fool.
Sin is not ended by multiplying words,
but the prudent hold their tongues.
The tongue of the righteous is choice silver,
but the heart of the wicked is of little value.
The lips of the righteous nourish many,
but fools die for lack of sense.
The blessing of the Lord brings wealth,
without painful toil for it.
A fool finds pleasure in wicked schemes,
but a person of understanding delights in wisdom.
What the wicked dread will overtake them;
what the righteous desire will be granted.
When the storm has swept by, the wicked are gone,
but the righteous stand firm forever.
As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes,
so are sluggards to those who send them.
The fear of the Lord adds length to life,
but the years of the wicked are cut short.
The prospect of the righteous is joy,
but the hopes of the wicked come to nothing.
The way of the Lord is a refuge for the blameless,
but it is the ruin of those who do evil.
The righteous will never be uprooted,
but the wicked will not remain in the land.
From the mouth of the righteous comes the fruit of wisdom,
but a perverse tongue will be silenced.
<blockquote>Also, I, as the Lord-designated (per Ephesians 5:23) head of my household, intend to enforce other biblical injunctions as well, including those of Leviticus. I will administer death or beatings, as the Law ordains, to my wives if they reap the edges of a field, plant differing seeds in that field (both from 19:19), pick up fallen grapes in our vineyard (19:10), sell an Israelite as a slave (25:40), or wear clothes mig different kinds of fabric (again from 19:19).</blockquote>
I'll let Leviticus 19:9-10 speak for itself.
Leviticus 19:9-10 When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:19 is commonly used by our friendly skeptics and atheists. Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart's book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310246040">How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth</a> explains on page 166:
<blockquote>These and other prohibitions were designed to forbid the Israelites to engage in fertility cult practices of the Canaanites. The Canaanites believed in sympathetic magic, the idea that symbolic actions can influence the gods and nature. Mig animal breeds, seeds, or materials was thought to "marry" them" so as magically to produce "offspring," that is, agricultural bounty in the future.</blockquote>
Nowhere does these laws require resorting to violence upon our wives. Rather, we should be assured there will be 'just violence' when Jesus returns together with the resurrected saints to fight war against the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+13:27&version=ESV">workers of evil</a>, enemies and mockers of God who do not embrace trust and faith in Jesus as Messiah and God.