Cherry Picking the Bible- Leviticus and Other OT Rules

I'm glad ramoss brought in the Jewish understanding.

quote:

---

Why do many people feel it's ok to cherry pick the laws they like from the bible, yet ignore others. Do they know which laws god is still enforcing?

---

Of the 613 laws from the Bible, which ones has God actually enforced?

quote:

---

I think we can start with the Leviticus laws and discuss why people think it's ok to follow some, but not others.

---

But do they even follow the one's they pick?What you call cherry picking is nothing more than not following laws that have gone obsolete. Unfortunately they do dredge up old ones to suit their purpose.It is like pulling up an obsolete law that is still on the books and enforcing it today. Someone could bring them up and choose to follow them, but officials aren't enforcing them anymore.I guess they have to have a reason for their actions. Reminds me of an old Dead Zone show.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Given what ramoss has stated and that Chritianity proclaims they are not under the law, the question remains: Why dredge up old rules?I haven't had a Christian who dredges give me a reasonable answer to that question yet.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

In Genesis, at creation specifically, when God established marriage and all of the accompanying relations as between one man and one woman...All of the Levitical laws pertaining to sexual relations fall under the umbrella of this "creation ordinance of marriage", including the prohibition of homosexuality...

---

I think you need to read Genesis again. No mention of marriage or what constitutes marriage. What I see above is a creative way of describing procreation. That's pretty standard for the animal kingdom that I have seen.As far as prohibition against homosexuality... this verse only concerns men and since there were some very strange religious rituals within other cultures, I wonder whether it concerns that, as opposed to, a loving relationship. You change it if you include women.

quote:

---

these laws are just as applicable today as in ancient times because they do not hinge on factors like: Old Testament vs New Testament, or The Temple no longer exists, etc....but rather on the fact that these laws are merely reflections/reinforcements of pre-existing biblical truths...

---

But why aren't all the laws applicable today? Clean and unclean food, circumcision, not creating hybrids, etc.Why are only some still applicable? That is the question.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I think you need to read Genesis again...for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his WIFE!! his what? and they shall be one flesh...the same terminology used today at marriage ceremonies...you really believe it's not talking about marriage? come on...

---

Not in the sense that you are. Maybe because I do genealogy, I have a different outlook.My husband and I are not one flesh. The child produced from our union is one flesh. So I agree with Ringo on that one. Sarah gave Hagar (her maid) to Abram for the sole purpose of bearing a child. Did Abram really become one flesh with Sarah's maid as well as Sarah? How many wives did Jacob have? One flesh?The Hebrew word "ishshah" translated as wife in this verse can also be translated as woman or female, just as the Hebrew word "iysh" which is translated man in this verse can also be translated as husband or male. I don't know Hebrew to know what nuances determine whether it is translated woman or wife. My guess is that it is possessive. When a man talks about his woman, then she is his mate and we translate that as wife and vice versa. Mating or procreation doesn't constitute marriage.The story of Adam and Eve is a very very very old story. Probably from the time of small tribes. Procreation and companionship were important, not the formalities.Even here in the states, early settlers would go ahead and consider themselves "married" and function as such until the traveling preacher could come around and perform the marriage ceremony. Not being legally married didn't stop them from procreating. If this verse in Genesis is the basis for marriage, then why have the rules of marriage changed over time?I think it just shows that it takes a man and a woman to create a baby.Etymology of our English word "wife". This verse supposedly by Paul is over 500 years later and oddly enough I think it was used, in a time of arranged marriages, to get men (not that all men of the time did) to stop looking at women as just a means of procreation. This was a letter addressing a specific group. But that doesn't change the meaning of the Genesis story.

quote:

---

You are correct that this verse only mentions male homosexual relationships...however as I mentioned aboved...the authority which condemns homosexual relationships is not to be found solely in Leviticus - although it was specifically instituted for the Israelites - but originally in Eden when God instituted marriage as between a man and a woman...

---

But homosexuality isn't about marriage. It is about sexual relationships and companionship, which as I pointed out above, doesn't need "marriage" to happen.

quote:

---

The law had a purpose: to reveal the Christ..having done so it's purpose is over - not that it no longer holds but that it the image has been superseded by the reality..

---

Yep, that's pretty much the answer I usually get and it still doesn't make sense.It's purpose is over, but it still holds. So that means we should still be following all the laws. But we don't, not even the ones concerning marriage. Please show me how all those laws "still hold."Edited by purpledawn, : Fixed etymology link.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

First: just because a word in Hebrew has different English meanings, you can't just use whichever meaning suits your purpose..Lacking any knowledge that the translators misinterpreted the word given the context, the word must remain..

---

I didn't. I looked at the way it was used. There has to be something in the way that it is used, that determined which English word was used. I can understand why the English word "wife" was used. Eve was Adam's mate and vice versa.

quote:

---

Second: These verses are not talking about pro-creation but rather being brought together as one unit - one flesh...

---

Oddly enough male and female were thought by some to already be literally one flesh (Genesis 1-Male and Female) before God took the female part of Adam and made Eve.I have difficulty with the one unit idea since the mean were allowed to have more than one wife. My money is still on mating. They unite and a child is the one flesh that emerges.

quote:

---

Your example of the settlers is an example of "formalities" - the reality being that they considered themselves in fact "married" - whatever that means?- not merely united for the sake of procreating.

---

Why do you think they didn't want to wait for the preacher? Marriage is a formality.

quote:

---

Formalities? Replacing the institution of marriage with one effect (procreation) of that institution is not "formalities"....

---

That's the point. Marriage is a manmade formality. The rules change throughout the ages.

quote:

---

What rules have changed?

---

Levite marriages, dowry's, arranged marriages, mixed marriages, rights of the wife/husband upon the spouses death, etc.Having sex does not equal being married. If you want to say that making a pledge to the other person is what constitutes a marriage, that's fine, but no pledge was made in the Adam and Eve story.I always thought it was strange that the verse stated that a man would leave his father and mother and cleave to the woman, but makes no mention of the woman's family. But if you look at ancient marriages, it seems that the woman actually leaves her family and not necessarily because she wants to (Tamar).

quote:

---

Nothing about procreation - everything about the relationship between a man and a woman paralleling the relationship between Christ and his (bride) the church...

---

That's what I said: This verse supposedly by Paul is over 500 years later and oddly enough I think it was used, in a time of arranged marriages, to get men (not that all men of the time did) to stop looking at women as just a means of procreation.

quote:

---

When I said the law still holds, I mean that it was fulfilled in Christ -the end of the law... Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"

---

And this is when the backpedaling starts.

quote:

---

The law served a purpose; that purpose has been fulfilled; That does not mean that the reality behind each individual law has been negated...

---

But does the reality still exist? IOW, does the need for the law still exist?People still murder, so yes.
People still steal, so yes.
People still raise cattle, so ...?
People still grow crops, so ...?
Women still have periods, so ...?Do we follow all the laws or not?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

People still raise cattle, so ...?
People still grow crops, so ...?
Women still have periods, so ...?

​

I'm not sure what your questions with these last three is...

---

Those situations still exist, so are those laws still needed?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Are you nudging me? I think you already know my thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2 concerning their timeline. Sorry I hadn't read your post about the combined male and female aspects. I think that arises from people trying to reconcile them in the order they appear in the Bible.

quote:

---

no sex is actually mentioned, either, unless you really twist the meaning of , (etz ha-daat, tree of knowledge).

---

I feel that cleaving has sexual implications. Not as obvious as the uncovering the feet approach , but that's the impression I get. I think it is a birds-and-the-bees type of story.I agree that the story says man cleaves to woman because they are similar (unlike the other animals of creation), but I don't feel the story is mandating legal marriage. Marriage was already a part of the culture when the story was written down.

quote:

---

women were non-objects, and genesis 2 is simple male-centric. no surprise there -- the man exists, and woman is created for him.

---

I'm really glad we got you guys out of that mode.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

yes, something i pointed out. i just thought you'd be interested, since you seemed to be contending (above) that the "male and female" aspect refered to a single individual. perhaps i misunderstood.

---

Just something I remembered reading, although, I think it was a Jewish writing. Of course the idea of the "one flesh" being a child also came from a Jewish reading. So I guess they compliment each other. Separate so they can procreate.

quote:

---

yes, of course. i think i said as much too -- but i do think it functions as an explanation for that practice.

---

I can accept it as a description of what was, but not a decree of what must always be.ABE
I think we've gone a little past what my point was (which I apparently botched) when I first answered mjfloresta's Message 8 concerning his comment. There isn't enough said in Genesis 2:24 to be an umbrella concerning all sexual relations.Since Genesis 1 is a priestly writing, I doubt that the A&E story carried much weight when the laws were established for the temple or otherwise.If you read the 613 Mitzvot, you will find no laws were pulled from Genesis 2, but "to be fruitful and multiply" was pulled from Genesis 1:28.Edited by purpledawn, : Added Comments

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Jesus in the gospels and Paul in his letters both explain the fulfillment of the Law as being Love of God and Love of neighbors...furthermore, against such as these there can be no wrong...So all laws must be evaluated in this light..

---

So you're saying that if the laws in the OT don't demonstrate love of God or Love of neighbors, then it need not be followed.Loving homosexual relationships don't interfere with loving God or loving your neighbor any more than a heterosexual relationship. So then why is that a law that is still pinpointed?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Don't leave me hanging.I still want to discuss how the purpose of the law is over but they still hold even though we don't follow all of them.Please see my Message 45

quote:

---

Jesus in the gospels and Paul in his letters both explain the fulfillment of the Law as being Love of God and Love of neighbors

---

Also where is this explained? This just says that there are no commandments greater than these two, not that we stop following the others.Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, which means to interpret them correctly. Not sure how that tells us today which OT laws to follow and which ones not to follow.So why dredge up the one about homosexual men?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Anyways, I just spent a good long time typing a response when my internet explorer quit

---

I hate when that happens. In our own venacular fulfilling a law means to obey it and righteous means doing what is right or just.

quote:

---

So righteousness is for whoever perfectly obeys the law...however the next point is that no one actually can or has perfectly obeyed the law (aka..none IS righteous)

---

The Bible writings do not support that the law must be obeyed "perfectly", which I assume by saying that you mean never to miss the mark even a smidge. See below for those deemed righteous.As far as Romans 3:9. Paul (not Jesus or God) is making the charge that all people, Jews, and Gentiles alike are controlled by sin. His "quote" stating that no one is righteous is made up of verses from five different songs (Psalm 14:1-3 or 53:2-4, 5:9, 140:3, 10:7, and 36:2) and Proverbs 1:16.

quote:

---

So Christ fulfills the law by: A. living the righteous life that no other can.

---

I agree with this in the sense that he followed the spirit of the laws, but I don't agree with the "no other can" part. Others were spoken of as righteous by the synoptic writers. Even in Mark, Jesus supposedly didn't care to be referred to as good.

quote:

---

B. imparting his righteousness to unrighteous man as a free gift.

---

That may help others to fulfill/obey the laws, but it doesn't change the laws. It should make it easier for us to follow them.

quote:

---

C. Taking the punishment required by the law for those who are not righteous. Therefore, the life that could not be earned under the law, is received throught the free gift of Christ...That is the fulfillment of the law...

---

What life do you feel people were trying to earn? The laws weren't given to earn a life. They were devised for a budding nation.The punishments associated with the OT laws don't pertain to the afterlife, they pertained to physical life. If I break any of our laws, I still suffer the punishment, even if it is death.

quote:

---

So the two commandments "love of God" and "love of man/neigbor" are clearly the reality behind the law - not just the greatest of the commandments...

---

They are the spirit or the intent behind the laws concerning our behavior in life. In the Jewish venacular of the time, to abolish or destroy the law means to interpret it incorrectly, just as to fulfill the law means to interpret it correctly. As you pointed out in the teachings of Jesus, he brought forth the spirit of the law which is interpreting them correctly.So given what we have both stated so far, what we have is Jesus teaching the spirit or intent behind the laws (love God and love your neighbor as yourself). That didn't change or stop any laws in his time. But as the teaching continued through Judaism and Christianity, those cultures as they matured continued to change and update their laws. Even the oral law came about as a way to upgrade and allow the laws to change with the culture.Since Jesus stresses the spirit of the law, the question still remains: Why dredge up old laws that are obsolete?The loving homosexual relationships today do not go against the golden rule or loving God. Why hang on to it.Adultery no longer carries a death sentence. The act of adultery is not a loving gesture towards one's spouse and is not a nice thing to do, but no death sentence.Divorce wasn't a two way street in Moses' time. Only men could give papers and just for the fact that the woman couldn't bear children. Not a way to love your neighbor. Now it is a two way street. It isn't loving to your neighbor to keep them in a bad or dangerous marriage.We no longer put mediums to death.The verse used against homosexuality only concerns men, but it has evolved to include women.Even adultery has evolved to be different than its origin. I understand why most of the OT laws are obsolete and how we (United States) have matured past the need for death sentences (except in extreme murder cases), but I don't understand why Christians need to dredge up the ruling against male homosexuals.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I fixed the link in Message 28 for the etymology of wife. Thanks I read Arach's response, but I do feel they may have been more matriarchal in the ancient tribal times. Of course matriarchal doesn't play out the same way patriarchal does. Many of the Native American tribes were matriarchal. I have "The complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Judaism" by Rabbi Benjamin Blech.I like this statement made in Chapter 2. This comment I find interesting also. The book even addresses Arach comments on the way women were treated. Just goes to show that what the Bible supposedly says isn't necessarily what is practiced. That's why I disagree with people pulling "laws" from the Bible out of context of the time and actual practice of the religion the law belongs to.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I tried to find more on the History of Wedding Vows but haven't come across much besides the link. I think they would much rather sell me a book.

quote:

---

the simple fact that polygyny was so very commonplace tells you that their marriage contract was different than ours. they had more than one wife, so they couldn't possibly become one flesh in the mystical sense with all of them, could they?

---

That's why I don't think the term "one flesh" refers to the act of marriage or love and commitment between two people.Some Jewish sources consider the one flesh to be a child. The man and woman cleave together (sex) and the result is one flesh (child). It is a creative way to say that man needs a woman to have a child and not those other animals that Adam was checking out.

Message 48

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

well, not just that. some outright contradict each other. at a certain point, interpretation about true meaning becomes disguising the pshat meaning.

---

I wonder if these interpretation techniques arose from the need to keep the old writings applicable beyond their time.Just like the "cherry picking" today. People can let go of what they want or feel is obsolete, but hang on to what they want even if it is obsolete. Is that selective reasoning?