Q: Following only some rules in Levicticus but not others?

The book of Leviticus was used as a guide for living a life pleasing to the Lord in the past. But nowadays, why do we only follow some rules and not others? (For example, we use the sexual relations guideline, but not the guideline about food and purification?)

Matt Slick, from CARM.org, takes the "traditional" approach in explaining how to apply rules from the Old Testament, including the book of Leviticus:

The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral.  The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy.  Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation.  Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.

The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus, who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross.  Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.

The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished, because the moral laws are based upon the character of God.  Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either.  Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.

In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws.  But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law.  

Summarily, things like sexual relations fall under the moral law category and must be obeyed, but others like food and purification fall under the priestly category and do not have to be followed. I would suggest you read this article (especially the end) by J. Daniel Hays entitled, "Applying the Old Testament Laws." Hays suggests a new approach ("principlism"), which involves 5 steps.

1. Identify What The Particular Law Meant To The Initial Audience
2. Determine The Differences Between The Initial Audience And Believers Today
3. Develop Universal Principles From The Text
4. Correlate The Principle With New Testament Teaching
5. Apply The Modified Universal Principle To Life Today

The authors then gives an example of how this works from Leviticus 5:2, "if anyone touches an unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean wild animal or a carcass of unclean livestock or a carcass of unclean swarming things, and it is hidden from him and he has become unclean, and he realizes his guilt":

Leviticus 5:2 provides an example of how the method of principlizing can be used by believers today to apply legal passages without being under the Law. The verse reads, "Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean—whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground—even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty." The action required to correct one’s ceremonially unclean status in this verse is described a few verses later. So verses 5–6 should also be included: "When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin." The traditional approach simply classifies these verses as a ceremonial law that no longer applies to believers today. However, using the principlizing approach, one can interpret and apply this text in the same manner as one would narrative.

What did the text mean to the initial audience? The context of Leviticus discusses how the Israelites were to live with the holy, awesome God who was dwelling in their midst. How were they to approach God? How should they deal with sin and unclean things in light of God’s presence among them? These verses are part of the literary context of 4:1–5:13 that deals with offerings necessary after unintentional sin. Leviticus 4 deals primarily with the leaders; Leviticus 5 focuses on regular people. Leviticus 5:2 informed the Israelites that if they touched any unclean thing (dead animals or unclean animals), they were defiled ceremonially. This was true even if they touched an unclean thing accidentally. Being unclean, they were unable to approach God and worship Him. To be purified (made clean), they were to confess their sin and bring the priest a lamb or a goat for a sacrifice (5:5–6). The priest would sacrifice the animal on their behalf and they would be clean again, able to approach and worship God.

What are the differences between the initial audience and believers today?

What is the universal principle in this text? The central universal principle in these verses relates to the concept that God is holy. When He dwells among His people, His holiness demands that they keep separate from sin and unclean things. If they become unclean, they must be purified by a blood sacrifice. This principle takes into account the overall theology of Leviticus and the rest of Scripture. It is expressed in a form that is universally applicable to God’s people in both the Old Testament and the New Testament eras.

How does the New Testament teaching modify or qualify this principle? According to the New Testament, God no longer dwells among believers by residing in the tabernacle or temple; He now dwells within believers by the indwelling Holy Spirit. His presence, however, still calls for holiness on their part. He demands that they not sin and that they stay separate from unclean things. However, the New Testament redefines the terms "clean" and "unclean." "Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’ … What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean’ " (Mark 7:15, 20–23). Believers under the New Covenant are not made unclean by touching dead animals. They become unclean by impure thoughts or by sinful actions.

The New Covenant also changed the way God’s people are to deal with sin and uncleanness. Rather than bringing a lamb or goat to atone for sin, a believer’s sins are covered at the moment of salvation by the sacrifice of Christ. The death of Christ washes away sin and changes the believer’s status from unclean to clean. Confession of sin, however, is still important under the New Covenant (1 John 1:9), as it was under the Old Covenant. Christians are not under the Old Covenant, and their sins are covered by the death of Christ. Also because they have direct access to God through Jesus Christ, they no longer need human priests as mediators.

Hope this helps. Keep asking good questions such as this one.

[Answered by Pastor HM]

Q: Does "An Eye For An Eye And A Tooth For A Tooth" In The OT Contradict What Jesus Teaches?

A: Yes in fact Jesus’ teaching is confronting the popular misuse and abuse of the Old Testament law, known as the law of retaliation. The Old Testament rule in Moses’ law was to guide judges in pronouncing their sentences. Jesus was opposing the manner in which the rabbis, scribes and Pharisees were presenting the rule to the people as a divine right to punish wrongdoers. Jesus was emphasizing the moral demand that one must not seek revenge as set out in Leviticus 19:18 and Romans 12:19.

In the Old Testament we read:

Exodus 21:22-25 “… eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot …” This passage is cited in a way that protected a pregnant woman and her child from death or injury that might occur if two men were in a fight.

Leviticus 24:17-22 “… fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.” This passage is applied generally to any case where a crime of murder or intentional maiming occurred.

Deuteronomy 19:15-21 “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” This occurs in a passage to prevent perjury and in attempting to use the court to execute or punish an innocent individual.

The literal meaning of the principle “Eye for an Eye” is that a person who has injured the eye of another is instructed to give the value of his or her own eye in compensation. At the root of this principle and purpose of the law is to provide equitable and fair compensation or punishment for an offended party. A person who has injured the eye of another is instructed to give the value of his or her own eye in compensation. It both defined and restricted the extent of compensation or the deserved penalty. The punishment must fit the crime – no more than the crime but also no less. It was strict but fair.

The law and principle was designed to prevent and deter such crimes. It was there to remove vengeful actions for crimes from the hands of the victim and his family and put them into the hands of the governing judicial system. It was designed as a principle of proportional justice and to appropriately punish the offender. This law was given to Moses and the people of Israel to assure that the judges would render righteous and proper judgment. In every instance in the Old Testament when a reference was made to "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," it was referring to judgment rendered by judges. A punishment sufficient to serve as a deterrent to the crime was to be rendered. This law was to insure against a judgment being rendered that was excessive and beyond reason.

The people of Israel had abused this rule by making it an excuse for retaliation and vengeance. They construed it as saying, "If someone knocks out my tooth, I have a moral right to knock out his tooth." But God had not intended this rule to authorize violence. Rather, He had given it to prevent what we call cruel and unusual punishment. In other words, just as a court in our time cannot impose penalties beyond certain limits, so also the judges of Israel could not dictate a punishment out of proportion to the damage done. If one man had wrongfully taken the sight of another, the offender could suffer no more in punishment than the loss of his own sight.

Too much of the world’s ethic today is also to: 1) strike back; 2) get even; 3) do unto others like they do to you. Many times the justification for retaliation is that ancient law, “… an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

In the New Testament, Jesus says in Matthew 5:38-39, “You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” This suggests discussion and likely debate in the Jewish community on the Old Testament law and the interpretation given to it by the judges, scribes and Pharisees. With this expression, Jesus is saying there is a contrast between what He is teaching and what the Jewish leaders have taught. Jesus dismissed the rule of eye-for-eye as invalid. He was not contradicting Scripture, but rather its misapplication.

Jesus continues in the rest of the passage in v. 40-42 and says, “And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” Jesus’ teaching here is confronting the popular misuse and abuse of the Old Testament law, known as the law of retaliation.

What does Jesus mean? Who is the evil person? The following four examples in this passage clarify this. The evil person is the person who: 1) slaps you on the cheek; 2) sues you for your clothes; 3) asks you to go a mile; or 4) asks you for money.

Notice also the change in perspective Jesus is giving compared to the Old Testament law. The Old Testament law addressed what the judges should do to the person who committed a criminal offense related to murder or maiming. Jesus has a different perspective. He addresses the issue on what you should do if offenses of conflict or insult happen to you. Jesus addresses not what the court or government should do, but what a disciple and Christ-follower should do when he or she is offended.

We understand the original teaching from the Old Testament is made with the intention to limit violence, and violent retribution or revenge. So, to begin with we start with something essentially good - made with proper intent to limit violence. Jesus will take it further in this passage, just as he has done with the other Laws he has cited and expounded further. Here Jesus warned his disciples not to resist violence with more violence. This was contrary to the OT passages cited above. Evil, and the evil person, can be overcome only by good. This keeps us free from anger -- from being poisoned by the evil directed against us and its destructive forces -- and instructs his followers to maintain Christian tolerance and restraint. It brings both us and our enemies under the yoke and umbrella of God's love.

What should Jesus’ disciples and followers do? Do not resist or retaliate? Yes, but Jesus’ call to discipleship goes beyond a passive response. He further calls us to take positive action: 1) turn the other cheek; 2) give your cloak as well as your tunic; 3) go the extra mile; and 4) give or lend to the person who asks you.

Jesus’ teaching is not merely legal and technical, but extends deeply and profoundly into the practical situations of conflict, oppression, and the needs of everyday life. When we are offended or insulted, we have two choices: we can escalate the conflict with retaliation, or we can de-escalate the conflict. Jesus calls his disciples and followers to be peacemakers in situations of conflict and instead extend a blessing.

Matthew 5:9 says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”

[answered by Pastoral Intern, Ray Lee]

Q: Why is there so much bloodshed and murder in the Old Testament? God sent his people to slaughter entire cities, including men, women and children...

...Why Children? Maybe the men and women have done things God cannot allow, but children... They probably don't even know what they're doing. They're not given a chance to repent!

A:  This is an interesting question that has huge implications. In answering your question, I draw some of my insights from this article (http://tinyurl.com/28hwslu); I encourage you to give that a read if you have time.

I think it’s important to establish that from a divine justice point of view, we are deserving of nothing good. If God is God, and we are imperfect humans that fall short of His standards, then we have no right to demand anything from God. In fact, we should be punished for our sin with death, sickness, suffering, guilt, and every bad thing, in this life and in the life to come; this is what we deserve (Rom 6:23).

This is obviously a very counter-cultural teaching, as the world tells us that we are all entitled to basic rights and freedoms. In Canada, there are basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to us in our constitution and upheld by the law. According to our laws, we do “deserve” these things. On a side note, I would argue that these are good things, and that we should uphold basic rights. However, we should be careful not to extrapolate these basic human rights to holding any weight before God. As I stated earlier, we aren’t entitled to anything before God. We simply have no bargaining chips to negotiate with (Rom 3:23). That we are NOT dead, and that some even have a chance to know God, is already more than we deserve; it’s bonus.

As you process that reality, another problem in our thinking is separating the God of the OT (Old Testament) from the God of the NT (New Testament). Most of us are more willing to believe in a God that loves, and forgives, and lays His life down for us. It may seem a shock that the God of the OT could be so cruel as to command His people to kill entire cities. Though this loving depiction of God in the NT is not wrong, it is incomplete. And so is the view of a cruel God in the OT. In the NT, God demanded righteousness of his people, and even went to the extent of striking down members of the church (Acts 5) who tried to deceive Him. That standard for righteousness has not been watered down from the OT to the NT. Jesus asserted that he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (meaning he wasn’t undoing the OT). Likewise, the God of the OT was not as cruel as we generally make Him out to be; He showed many acts of tender care for His people, and even for those who were not His chosen people. In the story of Jonah, he mercifully sent the prophet to stop the city from living in sin. When they repented, he gladly spared them. Though the times changed, and the writing styles and authors changed, the God of the OT is indeed consistent with the God of the NT. It is important that we look to both to give us a full picture of God.

In fact, to believe that God was cruel then (in the OT), is similar to believing that He is cruel now. God is unchanging (Jam 1:17). When you look at recent catastrophes, like 9/11 or the tsunami, there were great amounts of death. Victims included men, women, children, Christians, Muslims, atheists, all killed by the catastrophes. As I argued above, none of us are truly innocent or undeserving of death, and none of us have a case to bring before God that “He shouldn’t have killed us”. If you believe God to be omnipotent and omniscient (all-powerful and all-knowing), then the fact that He foresaw these disasters, and chose not to prevent them (even though He was strong enough to), could be seen as cruel in the same light.

In reality, what we read about in the Bible is that God’s ways are beyond our ways. It’s difficult to wrap our heads around, but God actually cares more about the victims of catastrophes and injustices; infinitely more than we do. Remember, He created them (Psa 139). And just because He permits the acts to happen, does not mean He’s rejoicing. Instead He mourns. But everything God does is love, and in some way (that is totally beyond our understanding), God can act in love, expand His kingdom, and yet permit these killings.

I think the proper thing to do in our current position is give thanks to God. Give thanks that you’re even alive (when technically we all deserve not to be). Give thanks that you’re able to repent (if you’re reading this, you have the capacity to repent). Give thanks if you’ve heard the Gospel and accepted it. And give thanks for any other good thing in your life (whether friends, family, food, school, etc). It’s all gravy on top.

[answered by Mark Cheng, Agape Counselor]