The following is an article written by a friend of mine, Mark Bonocore. As a brilliant thinker, a Catholic, and a good historian, he provides insight into the nature of the Biblical laws of Leviticus and why some applied then that do not apply now. I asked him to supply a solid and comprehensive article that would discuss the historical context and shed some light on the whole Old Testament law. The following is an argument made by a liberal against a conservative, Dr. Laura, and Mark's response to the liberal. I think it is a good read to educated yourself with a little Biblical context.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberal Argument against Dr. Laura's Position:
Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses sex advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that as an observant Orthodox Jew homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance. ......(WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE, ...)
- 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?
- 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? She's 18 and starting University. Will the slave buyer continue to pay for her education by law?
- I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
- 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?
- 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, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project?
- 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?
- 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? Would contact lenses help ? (What about laser vision?).
- 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 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?
- 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.
So, this woman is arguing that, if we're going to observe Lev 18:22, we might as well observe all these other ridiculously "out of date" things too. However, such an argument is rooted in a misunderstanding of Leviticus and the nature of that book.
So, what is Leviticus? Simple stated, in rabbinical language, Leviticus is a "hedge." ...that is, a barrier or higher standard of legal "righteousness," set up by God/Moses in order to stop the Israelites (who were semi-pagans at the time) from violating the heart of the Divinely-revealed Law: The 10 Commandments. And, based on this understanding, each of your friend's citations above were established to prevent the pre-Christian proto-Jews from violating the righteousness of a corresponding Commandment.
For example, ... Sacrifice was called for in Lev. 1:9 because the animals that the Israelites were commanded to sacrifice were the very same animals that their pagan neighbors (the Egyptians and the Canaanites) worshiped as gods. Thus, it helped to support the Commandment: "I Am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me." ...Because you were sacrificing these "gods" rather than worshiping them.
Similarly, Lev 25:44 permitted the Israelites to own slaves from other nations, yet not from their own nation (the chosen Covenant people of God), so as to underscore the importance of the Covenant between God and Israel: "I Am the Lord your God Who brought you up out of Egypt." ...where they were slaves. And this was a radical innovation, since every nation on earth at the time owned slaves from among their own people.
Also ... Exodus 21:7 refers to concubinage ...a common practice at the time, which was actually an aspect of Semitic legal (non-Sacramental) marriage. In other words, in the ancient Middle East, even marriage was merely a matter of ownership. The man owned his wife as a piece of property, just as he likewise could own a concubine. The only difference between marriage and concubinage was that marriage granted more privileges to the wife than those enjoyed by a mere concubine. In essence, sons born to a wife had the necessary right to inherit property, whereas sons born to a concubine did not. What's more, Exodus 21:7 does not command anyone to sell their daughter into slavery; rather, it merely acknowledges that this practice existed (since, again. women were regarded as property in the ancient Middle East), and it provides a moral code for protecting their female slaves from harm. In other words, they were not to simply be let free (where they could be raped or killed by bandits while returning home), but returned to their families; and also provided for, and not abused. So, Exodus 21:7 is pro-woman (by Bronze Age standards), not anti-woman.
As for Exodus 35:2, disrespecting the Sabbath was deemed worthy of death because it was a violation of the Covenant relationship with God, which leads to spiritual death. Thus, this instruction was given to underscore the integrity of "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Religious obligation was taken very seriously in ancient times. People did not treat their gods (or God) as flippantly as we do today.
As for Lev 11:10, Lev 21:20, and Lev. 11:6-8 ... These were Semitic health codes equated with membership in a tribe --in this case, the Israelites (the Covenant people of God). Thus, one observed them in order to remain a part of the Covenant people. Those who belonged to this people did not eat pork or shellfish, etc. Avoiding such things was an intrinsic part of your cultural identity, and it signified your membership (and your right to membership) in the tribe. It meant that you belonged. SSSooo, for the Jews, a common, Middle Eastern cultural moray took on spiritual and moral significance. If one ate shellfish or pork (which were both often diseased and unhealthy to eat in Bronze Age Palestine), or if one did not quarantine oneself when it came to eye diseases and other contagious illnesses, then one was not only excluding oneself from the tribe, but also excluding oneself from the Chosen People --that is, from the special Covenant that this people enjoyed exclusively with God, and thus from salvation itself! Ergo, the legal prescriptions against such things.
...And the same was true for Lev. 19:19 and Lev. 20:14, which were similar violations of the tribe's property and peaceful inter-family relationships. And, again, if you excluded yourself from the tribe, in this case, you were excluding yourself from the Covenant of salvation.
As for Lev.19:27 ... This was a similar prohibition because it separated your tribe (the Covenant people) from the cultic customs of your pagan neighbors. This again, within the culture of the day, served to promote the integrity of the tribe (the Chosen nation).
Also, Lev.24:10-16 forced one to treat the Commandment "You shall not take the Lord's Name in vain" seriously. As I said above, piety and religious obligation were taken seriously by ancient peoples. The gods (or the God of Israel) were real to them, not just cultural niceties.
And, lastly, Lev. 15:19-24's prohibition, making a menstruating woman "unclean," was a guard against the Commandment "You shall not commit adultery." Why? Because, in the days before effective contraception, if you wanted to sleep with your buddy's wife, this was the time to do it ...when she couldn't get pregnant. Yet, if you made her "taboo" (under the punishment of God) and separated her from the tribe (i.e., from all men who might like to sleep with her), then you were eliminating what Catholics call "the near occassion of sin" --that is, the opportunity and the temptation to commit adultery, and you were thus promoting the Commandment.
And that brings us to Lev 18:22, which is also a legal "hedge" to protect the very same Commandment --"Thou shall not commit adultery." Why? Because, unlike us, the ancients were pretty sensible people and knew that homosexuality could not be legitimized or replace heterosexual marriage. For goodness sake, one could not have children with a homosexual lover; one could not, therefore, establish a family or clan with this person; and so, if one was a farmer or herdsman, etc., one would end up doing all the work himself (because he'd have no children to help him), and most likely starve in the winter time. And so, as any sensible person must admit, homosexuality produces no "fruit." Thus, almost all ancient homosexuals also had wives And since this was the case, homosexuality by nature was (and is) adulterous ...that is, it is an activity one participates in outside of marriage and in violation of marriage. And thus it violates the Commandment, intrinsically. This is why it was considered sinful to the ancient Jews, and this also touches on why it is sinful for modern Catholics. The Catholic Christian Faith teaches that ANY sexual activity outside of a marriage covenant is objectively sinful. And we likewise define marriage according to natural law and biological reality. Marriage is essentially the mating of a human male and a human female, the biological purpose of which is obviously to produce offspring. This is the biological purpose of mating in any animal species. And while the production of offspring is obviously not the only benefit of marriage, it is central to the thing itself. A man and a woman can mate. Two men, or two women, cannot. Rather, according to biological reality, homosexuality is an obvious disorder. It is a biological dead-end, and an intrinsically selfish activity. It is essentially an act of "communal" masturbation, not mating or marriage (rationally defined). And if our modern age viewed sex in a mature and rational way --that is, if we recognized what sex actually is (a biological act of mating and reproduction), and NOT something that exists merely for pleasurable recreation, then every rational person would agree that homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered and that marriage between homosexual lovers is impossible.
Thus, Leviticus' prohibition against homosexual activity still stands today, since (just like fornication and other extra-marital sexual activities) it is just as much a violation of marital intimacy and holiness today as it was in the Bronze Age. That's why the prohibition is given ...to be a "hedge" around an even greater call to righteousness. As a very wise priest once said, ... "Homosexual activity, heterosexual fornication, or good ol' fashion adultery ...one of them will put you in hell as easily as the next." In other words, all sex outside of marriage is a sin causing damage to the human person. This is the Judeo-Christian Tradition: the tradition our civilization is founded upon.
