For instance, secularists typically use parts of Leviticus, an Old Testament book, to argue that just because a scripture contains violent language or instruction is no reason in and of itself enough to assume that the faith based in part on that scripture will be violent. Fair enough, but that actually doesn’t tell us much because Christianity isn’t based on Leviticus per se. It tells us even less about Islam, for reasons I’ll get to later.
Leviticus forms part of what’s known as the Law (along with Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), and in the Christian way of thinking the civil and ceremonial components of the Law hold no command on our behavior today because the purpose of the Law was fulfilled in Christ. Christians are not bound by the legal commands of the Law, and we do eat pork and do lots of other things that the Law forbids, and likewise we don’t do many things the civil and ceremonial Law commands us to do. I don’t want to get too esoteric here for the non-believers to be able to follow me, but essentially, those parts of the Law are no longer authoritative over the behavior of the Christian believer. They have been abrogated by later acts and writings. That doesn’t mean those five books are without value; far from it. They’re incredibly valuable for many, many reasons. But the civil and ceremonial Law belongs to a set place and time and was abrogated by, among other things, Christ’s death and resurrection and Peter’s vision in Acts 10. The Law’s overall purpose–making humans presentable to a holy God–was fulfilled in Christ. I won’t pretend to speak for Jews as to the authority of Leviticus today, but I suspect they would say much the same thing: It’s an early part of scripture that has been abrogated by later scripture.

This is an excellent article from Hot Air.

I won’t pretend to speak for Jews as to the authority of Leviticus today, but I suspect they would say much the same thing: It’s an early part of scripture that has been abrogated by later scripture.

The author's suspicion is completely erroneous.

Great article.

This may be tangential to his main point (since he's writing mostly about Christians), but it bugs me a bit that he was going on about parts of Leviticus being abrogated when Jews absolutely do not believe that at all.

In his defense, I don't think bestiality, or gathering firewood on the Sabbath, are death penalty offenses anymore.


But I guess while the penalties have lessened, all of the laws still apply. I guess. (Since I probably know no more about Jewish theology than the author).

I think cba's issue is not that the prohibitions are no longer observed strictly, but that the author has the opinion that there are passages in the Tanakh (i.e., the "Old Testament" to Christians), which abrogate the laws of Leviticus in the same sense that the New Testament does for Christians.

It simply isn't so.

Thanks Frank for explaining more clearly than I could.

P.S. I think joem could probably expand on this!

Did I just say "issue" when I should have said "problem"?

Ugh. :(

I have nothing to say, I'm just fixing bloggie. Carry on.

Uh, oh....too much "clickity, clickity, click" again?

You're both right.





Ed, the penalties haven't lessened. Not one word has changed in the Torah since it was received at Mt. Sinai. The difference nowadays is that we don't have a Sanhedrin - a court of judges. The Batei Din that exist today only judge in civil cases between Jews, or on matters of personal status (e.g. marriage, divorce). If the Sanhedrin would be in existence today, the penalties described in Leviticus would stand.

However - and it's a very big however - all those terrible death penalties were never, or almost never carried out. There are so many caveats and conditions to be fulfilled before a death penalty can be carried out, that basically they made it more or less impossible. The Talmud states that a Sanhedrin that executed one person in 70 years was considered a cruel Sanhedrin.

In which case one might ask what was the point of those terrible threats of death in the Torah? Probably as a deterrent IMHO. I'm sure joem can expand on this subject.

Sorry, I forgot my marginalia.

Batei Din (singular: Bet Din) is Hebrew for courts or court houses. (lit: house of judgement).

Hell no. With you around, what else is left to say? You pretty much covered all the bases. Off to take my van to body shop. A week with three dogs and no van. Joy!

Thanks, annie!

I won’t pretend to speak for Jews...

Don't even try. It's Aridog's territory.

Well said, annie. One of the (many) stipulations for the punishment to be carried out, is that the person would need to be warned by two witnesses, both what the prohibition is and what the punishment would be, and these same witnesses would then have to come and testify against the person. I'm not sure how much of a deterrent the threat of punishment was if it was so very rarely carried out - but it certainly serves to point to the relative gravity of the sins.

The problem with athiests is, they usually get it all wrong. I say that as an athiest.

Christ did not come to destroy Scriptual Law. He came to confirm it, and expound upon it to give it greater meaning. Matt 5:17-18

Common Christian teaching says to follow Old Testament Law EXCEPT where there is specific instruction to the contrary in the New Testament. BEEP. Wrong! Matthew tells us every jot and title of the Lord’s law is binding upon God’s people in all ages, and St Paul tells us that we are a debtor to the whole law, through a covenant with God. Christians ARE bound to Old Testament Law. ALL of it.

What IS permissible (for Christians) is to separate the ceremonial and civil aspects of the law with the moral aspect. They can change or eliminate the former to fit the times... but what was a moral offense to God, remains a moral offense, and that will not ever change.

... bus came for the kid :)

anyway... the whole brouhaha revolves around the interpretation of the greek word plerosai, which has no identical english counterpart. Plerosai is used repeatedly in the Bible as "fulfill" but it is more nuanced than just that one word indicates. It is an active word. To fulfill one's destiny is not the end, but the act of fulfillment. It is also used when fleshing out or giving further meaning to a story or explanation - aka Paul Harvey's "The Rest of the Story".

Jesus said, I have not come to destroy the Law and Prophets, but to "fulfill". Okay, Christians take this as a personal statement - a declaration of Jesus's Perfection and Messianiac nature. BUT THATS NOT WHERE THE STORY ENDS. Matthew goes on. Jesus goes over each of the Ten Commandments and starts closing loopholes: You look at your neighbor's wife with lust in your heart, well that counts as adultery too. Blah blah blah... and he tells us, All of the Law - every detail of the Law - applies to God's people for All time. So that puts an entirely different spin on the passages. Jesus is "fulfilling" the Law and Prophets by clarifying what God wants of us.

If you take the Christian argument that Christ and the New Covenant are the fulfilled reality, you have to admit it is contradictory. If Christ himself was the fulfillment and his sacrifice relieved humanity of our ceremonial obligation completely and finally, then it should have fulfilled the moral aspect as well, and we should no longer be obligated to follow ANY part of the Law.

Not sure I can "speak for" Jews, but I do speak for myself, and certainly favor Israel over the alternatives in the neighborhood.

Let's see.....among a few other things....

Jewish Lady....



Neighbor Ladies....



Decisons, decisions....and so little time :-P

But I do understand why the neighboring guys are upset with what they are stuck with :)

I think when you mix Greek women and Italian men, you get Muslims. :)

Can I have name and phone number of THAT Jewish lady? I convert easy, you know?

Bastardi....no, not Joe...you two! rsrsrsrs

The new Mauretto...?

Except for the chadors and the uniformly dark complexions, the women in the second image in #20 could have been the women who got on the ferry at Tinos.

I once read somewhere that Peter's vision of clean and unclean food in Acts, was actually just a sign that Gentile converts to Christianity didn't have to be circumcised and convert to Judaism before they could be considered followers of Christ, and, is not, in fact, permission to eat pork chops and bacon double cheeseburgers.



I hope not, as I've eaten many a pork chop and bacon double cheeseburger in my life.