Old Testament Sacrifices
Taught Us To Expect A Sacrifice
Not Make One
Introduction: Leviticus 18 is a rather daunting passage of Scripture. It actually imposes the death penalty on same-sex relations between males. It is significant that it doesn’t mention women but we’ll talk about that later. For now, my intent is to use interpretive principles to determine why this command was given and see if there isn’t a softer, more generous way to understand this directive.
The Bible is a book that must be interpreted and everyone agrees but they don’t all agree on what that actually means or how it is done. As soon as you use interpretive principles to step on the toes of some prized belief, you’ve got a fight on your hands.
What It Means To Interpret The Bible
Bible believers often say they take the Bible literally. I’ve said that often and I still say it today but “literal” needs qualification.
Even if you take the Bible literally, you still must interpret the text before you can apply it.
Interpretation is at the heart of the discussion and it, more than anything else, shapes our understanding of literal. It literally changes what we mean by literal.
Simply put, interpretation is a process. To admit to the process means we aren’t taking the Bible at face value. We don’t take biblical statements and simply overlay them on human society expecting everyone to comply.
The very few who take that approach do so only selectively. They apply some passages literally and others not. The selection process between which are treated literally and which are not is done with little explanation as to how the line is drawn between the ones we obey exactly and the ones we don’t.
Why is one accepted without an interpretive exercise and another not? That question is never even explored.
The people who take a so called literal approach to the entire Bible are also thought to be weird and are viewed as outside the mainstream. As an example, neither Jews nor Muslims will eat pork. The rest of the world is enjoying a piece of bacon and wondering what’s the problem. And that’s only one issue. There are many more.
Generally, no one takes a word for word approach to the entire Bible. No one!! Some, as I’ve mentioned, claim to do so and will often try to but when they come to the Old Testament requirement for men to grow and braid their sideburns, obedience takes a turn, unless you happen to be a Hasidic Jew.
Among Christians, not even the hard core, heavy handed, fist pounding believers will go that far.
Taking the interpretive approach, we ask questions, all of us, about each idea before applying it to life. Or that’s what we should do. Asking questions is an important part of the process.
The point is no one really offers unqualified, exacting obedience to the Bible.
What The Bible Says Is Not What The Bible Teaches
More to the point, what that really means is what the Bible says is not what the Bible is actually teaching. The Bible may mean exactly what it says, but there is a huge difference between what the Bible is saying and what it is actually teaching.
Interpretation is the work we do after reading what the Bible says so we can come to an understanding of what the Bible teaches.
Most people understand this on a subconscious level but it needs to be highlighted as central to the discussion.
Taking that thought a little further, what the Bible says, the letter of the text, and what it teaches, the spirit of the text, are sometimes so different the ideas are counterintuitive which means we have to do some work to figure it out.
The connection between the meaning of the words and the teaching of the text is not always immediately clear and the only thing we can do to bring clarity is to engage the interpretive process.
That’s what it means to interpret the Bible.
Holes In The Ground vs Indoor Plumbing
Following is a good example.
During the Exodus, the Israelites were commanded to dig holes outside the camp to use as latrines. It wasn’t a suggestion. They were commanded to do this and they probably didn’t understand why (the Egyptians used human waste as ointments for wounds). As far as we know, they complied but they could only do so blindly. They had no way of understanding the existence or nature of microscopic germs.
The question we must ask is what is being taught here. We know what the text says: Dig holes away from human habitation and use them as toilets. That’s clear but what is the actual teaching?
Before we go further, I still believe the Bible is God’s Word and is completely relevant for today. Where I disagree is I don’t think compliance requires a direct application of biblical texts to today’s culture.
As a rule, we don’t dig holes today and anyone who does would be considered silly or inflicted with any one of several not so complimentary mental conditions, unless they live in the wilderness, of course.
The obvious reason behind the dig-holes command was to avoid the long list of diseases caused by contact with human waste.
So, what is the teaching in this instance? Why were they told to dig holes and why doesn’t that command apply to us?
It’s simple. Good hygiene and sanitation is the teaching, not digging holes away from human habitation. What the text is saying – dig holes – is one thing but what it’s teaching – sanitation – is entirely different. Keeping humans and human waste separate, is the goal.
No one is more spiritual because they poop in a hole in the ground. Inconvenienced, yes! Exposed, yes! Irritated, maybe. I would be! Obedient, no!
Robotic Rendering Is Not Acceptable
It is possible to be mechanically exacting in how you read the Bible. God said dig a hole so we dig a hole. Or you could reason through the idea and determine why it was necessary and how we can obey the underlying principle without being obsessively tied to the text.
In the Old Testament, digging holes was the only option they had under the circumstances. There were hundreds of thousands of Israelites and they were traveling through the wilderness. They couldn’t settle and the only sanitary option they had was holes outside the camp.
That isn’t true today. We can and have improved on our ways to obey the “teaching” of this passage. We should do that elsewhere too.
In fact, if you insist on digging holes, you’re complying in a strictly word for word sense but still disobeying the spirit of the text to a degree. Modern ways of dealing with human waste – indoor plumbing and sewer systems, not to mention toilet paper, soap and running water – are far better, more advanced, more reliable ways of achieving sanitation than holes in the ground.
If you’re digging holes, you’re still missing the point.
In this instance, the Bible was saying one thing but teaching something quite different. The Bible said use latrines. What it was teaching is good hygiene and sanitary lifestyles.
The Interpretive Process
A big part of the interpretive process involves asking questions like: What was the motive of a given command – why was it needed? What were they doing at the time? What were they thinking? What were the living conditions? What problems were being solved? What cultural problems were being addressed? Do those problems exist today and how does it apply to people in the present?
When we ask the right questions, we gain context which is critically important when trying to apply Scripture to life.
Some people flinch at the idea of asking questions. It seems too much like questioning God or refusing to obey but the idea of interpretation demands that we ask questions.
God gave us the Bible but He also gave us a brain and He expects us to use it.
So, there are two ways to obey the Bible. One by obsession with the text and one by attention to the details behind the text. Following are several additional ideas to consider in arriving at a clear understanding of context, especially when dealing with a passage like Leviticus 18.
Laws Are Guidelines Not Absolute Rules
The previous long winded discussion was important to make one point. The Old Testament is filled with laws that don’t apply directly to society as we know it today. It was a different world and a different situation during the Exodus. Laws that applied then, don’t fit neatly in our world.
Every word was inspired but an inspired word does not constitute an absolute rule. The command for Abraham to leave Ur and travel to Canaan was inspired but it hardly constitutes a rule for every person in every era.
We know the Bible has to be interpreted. That’s a given. What we don’t easily see is how the Bible is much like the laws we deal with every day.
The interpretive/application process plays out daily in legal matters and we accept that as normal but when it comes to the Bible, we balk.
What we know from millennia of experience dealing with the law is that no law fits neatly into every possible situation to which it may apply. That’s why we have courts, judges, juries, attorneys and procedures.
Some individual may appear guilty on the surface but after courts and attorneys consider publicly all the facts in evidence, might be judged innocent, or at least not completely culpable or there might not be enough evidence to make a judgment.
The system isn’t rigged against us. Everything’s put in place to protect us. The law, and the people who wield it – the avengers – can be ruthless and cruel. Instant revenge was also regulated in the Old Testament, not because it was a good idea but because it was a step toward curbing overreactive, damning responses to violations.
People tend to overreact when offended. That’s why the law also said, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” meaning you can exact no more punishment than a tooth’s or eye’s worth. Rather than kill every person who offends you, the punishment must be weighed carefully against the offense.
And, yes, there are always people unhappy about the apparent miscarriage of justice when courts don’t make rulings they expect but that’s the case even when Jesus is the Judge.
When Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, an obvious refusal to impose punishment, a response that was tantamount to disobeying inscribed law, I’m sure family members of the accused woman (and the man she committed adultery with) along with neighbors, walked away moaning about Jesus being soft on crime.
Every law in the Old Testament must be subjected to careful, deliberate, analyses instead of rushing to judgment. That idea applies to same-sex and sexual identity issues also.
Laws Represent Principles Not Absolutes
Laws can become obsolete. Even laws inscribed by inspiration in the Old Testament.
The laws that applied to the Exodus didn’t fit in first century AD and neither set of laws work for today. Principles may carry over but not the details.
The inspired text includes many laws (of which Leviticus 18 represents only a few) and what is true for legal statutes today is true for the laws of the Old Testament. It must be deliberately and carefully considered (otherwise known as the interpretive process). That’s true for every law ever written, those written by God and those written by men.
“Thou shalt not kill” is a case in point. It’s only one command but there are many nuanced applications. On the surface, we understand that no person is allowed to randomly take the life of another person and that the penalty for doing so is severe, death.
There’s an irony here we often ignore.
I cannot kill you but authorities can kill me if I do. That is if they judge my killing of you to be first degree. On the one hand, man is not allowed to kill man but on the other, is required to kill the man that kills another man.
Killing isn’t allowed in one instance but is required in another. “Required” is the key word here. That’s how humans often read the biblical instruction but you must be careful. There were many apparent capital situations in the Old Testament in which the death penalty was not applied. According to the biblical example, the death penalty isn’t as required as some would lead us to believe.
We need to rethink that.
Fortunately, we have developed the ability to factor in context. Killing another person is considered justified when it’s done in self defense. Even when the killing is punishable, the punishment may be limited by mitigating factors. Was it accidental? Was the killing provoked? And so on?
We do not obey “Thou shalt not kill” absolutely because we cannot. It’s impossible. Laws don’t stand alone. The actions we take to apply any law must be informed by context. Answering all the questions surrounding even one law takes work and can be quite puzzling.
When it comes to passages like Leviticus 18, it is fair to ask why the death penalty was applied. What was so egregious to require such a response? I’ll answer that question just now.
The Law Was A Backup Plan
People don’t often talk about it but the legal system came after the fact and very slowly. There was only one law following creation: don’t eat of the forbidden fruit. Breaking that law created a cascading effect bringing us to the legal state we’re in today.
The whole point is laws were only needed because human’s were tainted in the fall by sin. Once human nature became sinful, our internal moral compass lost true north.
Laws are the backup system and they don’t keep up well with human ability to color outside the lines. Once a regulation is set, humans begin looking for the loophole immediately.
There are basically only two principles of righteousness: Love God and love your neighbor.
That was the point Jesus made when He reduced the entire system down to two great commandments (Matthew 22:37-40). Meaning, of course, that the Ten Commandments are an expansion on the two commandments. Four are focused on loving God and six are focused on loving your neighbor. Every other law following that can be categorized under one of those two principles.
So, we have to ask, where does Leviticus 18 fit into that scheme? What infraction is being protected against? In what way is same sex relations an offense? Who is being harmed and how are they being harmed?
As a backup plan, laws are never perfect and never fixed. They will and should constantly be questioned and changed if necessary.
The Law Is Not Eternal
It’s also true that laws are not eternal. They are written to address potential problems as they develop. Speed limit laws were written only in recent history, as people developed faster means of travel: horses, buggies, motor cars.
Long before the first motor cars were developed horses were not allowed to gallop in the city and horse drawn buggies were not allowed to exceed foot pace on Sundays.
Laws protect people by addressing situations that pose problems at the time the law is written but the situations laws are intended to address are not static. Situations change and when they do, the laws must change too.
Speed limit laws have changed many times and for obvious reasons. The absurdity of maintaining outdated laws needs no argument and illustrates well the idea that laws need to be revisited often even when you find them in the Bible.
Once we discover exactly what offense Leviticus 18 was addressing, we can then rethink the matter.
Interpretation Doesn’t Deny Inspiration
Before saying more, Let me make it clear that interpretation in no way casts doubt on inspiration. Saying the text of Scripture was inspired by God means it is important, significant and must be taken seriously.
The words of the Bible were meant for a specific person or group of people and applied to a particular situation, such as the Exodus. We can and should draw principles from the inspired text, indeed we have, but obeying the text blindly, word for word is hardly the best way to respect the text.
We must read it and study it carefully to determine what is being taught. Not what is said. That’s easy. What is being taught is the goal of our investigation.
Mechanical compliance misses the point. Obeying the spirit of the text is more important than the letter but we can’t get to the spirit of the text if we don’t at least respect the letter. And respect, of course, is demonstrated by the time and effort one puts in to understanding it.
The intent here is to understand what the Bible means, not eliminate it.
Prohibitions on diet provide a good example. Old Testament dietary restrictions, what could or could not be eaten, were provided for health reasons, not moral reasons. We now know that pork, depending on how it’s raised, processed and prepared, can be dangerous to eat. Was that common knowledge in the Old Testament? We have no reason to think it was.
But the text was necessary to protect Israelites from common but misunderstood diseases. We still respect the inspiration of the dietary laws even if we don’t obey them to the letter today.
Most of the people reading this probably eat bacon. The ones that don’t eat pork primarily because of what the Old Testament says, are taking a very shallow approach to serious information. Using inspiration as the justification for this approach does not speak well of their sensibilities.
We must apply this same interpretive approach to Leviticus 18. If the law isn’t eternal, what principle of this teaching remains and in what way can it be relaxed?
Laws Don’t Make People Holy
A weakness of religion is the tendency to treat laws like spiritual supplements, as if obeying them regularly is somehow an antidote to our sin nature. Sorry, but that isn’t true.
Going to church is protective but it doesn’t change your basic nature. In fact, if you aren’t changed (by the new nature) before you go to church, you’ll only be aggravated after.
Driving within speed limits makes you safer, not better, and even then there is no guarantee.
Old Testament laws served a purpose. They gave direction and provided boundaries for that time period. They didn’t make anyone holy then and they won’t make us holy now.
If not eating pork made the Old Testament folks holy, then we must avoid eating pork. We also must not cut our sideburns or wear clothing made from blended materials.
The reason for some of these laws is uncertain. We can only speculate. That doesn’t mean the laws weren’t important or the people of that day didn’t understand the significance. It does mean those laws don’t make anyone holy.
Every single law must be carefully considered before making it relevant for today.
Sometimes the reasons for laws are obvious and sometimes they’re not but the point is interpretation involves more than reading and doing likewise. Every statement in the Bible has context and context shapes the understanding of each and every statement in the Bible.
Everyone understands this and factors it into their interpretations even if they don’t mention it very loudly or often. Some do it without thinking.
By the way, the meaning of the word “Holy” has little to do with being sanitized. It actually means set apart. Holy changes your commitment, not your condition. It has nothing to do with raising you to a different level of perfection.
The toilet brush in our home is holy because it is committed to one purpose, cleaning the toilet. It isn’t sanitized or purified and never will be. It is holy only because it is set apart for one specific purpose. It would be profane to use it for cleaning teeth but it is holy as long as it is used for its primary purpose.
You’re still just you. You’re no more purified than all the people around you.
You may be in a position to do something others can’t do. You might qualify in ways others can’t but that makes you more useful, not better.
If any of the strictures of the Old Testament make you better, then we have a lot of changing to do on many levels. They don’t, so we won’t.
Faith Was Less Cerebral For Old Testament Believers And The Law Didn’t Help
An interesting observation, of course, is that faith for Old Testament believers was far more uninformed and blind than for believers today. Laws regulating how we raise and handle pork not only make consuming pork safer but have replaced the Old Testament restrictions.
Though the text doesn’t apply directly to us today, it was essential for Israelites and we still recognize it as inspired.
Inspired should be defined as any “God given statement at a specific time to address particular situations.” Is it important? Yes! Does inspiration make it eternal or holy? Not necessarily.
What I did there was give you an example of interpretation. Even though we don’t follow the law to the letter, Scripture wasn’t denied and the spirit of the law remains in tact.
That same exercise should apply to every passage in the Bible, particularly where restrictions seem to be harsh or out of keeping with our understanding on the issue.
No One Obeys Leviticus 18 Entirely
Now, to the passage at hand.
In first world countries, Leviticus 18 is not obeyed to the letter. There are plenty in those countries who believe it and insist we should obey it but, fortunately, there are laws in place to prevent such extreme action.
Since Christian and Muslim communities can’t impose these uninterpreted laws on democratic societies, they target developing countries who are vulnerable. Statista.com reports that as of 2020 there are more than 30 African countries where same-sex relations are illegal and four of those countries impose the death penalty.
Why The Death Penalty For Sex
There’s a very important question we have to ask here. Was God really requiring the death penalty for sex? Is that what He was saying? Is that the teaching? Is that what we’re believing? Can that idea really be justified?
Death was a serious penalty but could it possibly be applied to something as ubiquitous as consensual sex?
The death penalty had a place in the Old Testament. That can’t be denied but for sex!
Is anyone really comfortable saying that?
On the surface, it appears that is what the Bible is saying but, please, can that really be what the Bible is teaching? Let’s do a deeper dive before coming to that conclusion.
To be clear, no one is executing gays other than a few extreme religious cultures (mostly Muslim and theocratic) or vulnerable communities, like African countries influenced by Christian missionaries from western cultures. Those missionaries have no legislative influence in their home countries but freely impose these ideas on struggling third world cultures.
A second website, Human Dignity Trust, verifies the stats. More than thirty African countries criminalise gay sex and four of those impose the death penalty.
Other regions where missionary activity has predominated and LGBT issues are criminalised are Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific.
Where Did The Death Penalty Come From
To gain perspective on this issue, we need to consider the first time the death penalty was mentioned, Genesis 9:6. The Bible says:
Whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
Simple and straight to the point, this pithy statement gives both the basis and the means of the penalty. If you take the life of another human, presumably by violent, premeditated means, such as the situation that existed before the flood, then by humans your life will be taken.
This penalty was not instituted quickly or easily. It was not God’s first response to the violence humans are capable of. Cain murdered Abel and rather than issue punishment, God protected Him from retaliation.
God’s response in this situation was more concerned with preventing vengeful responses than with righting every wrong. We should keep that in mind when dealing with capitol issues.
Cain was the first but not the only murderer before Genesis 9.
- Lamech committed murder but suffered no judicial consequence, Genesis 4.
- Humanity’s thoughts as a whole eventually became “only evil continually” and they “filled the earth with violence” (Gen. 6:5 &13). That violence surely included murder many times over.
We don’t know how much time expired before Genesis 9 but it had to be at least a thousand years since several pre-flood individuals lived over 800 years and Methuselah tops the list at 969. That means it took a long time before the death penalty was instituted and even centuries after, David committed a particularly egregious murder (2 Sam. 11) and got a pass.
What that means is that the death penalty is not a first solution, a final solution, or a best solution. It’s an option and even when it fits, it may not be a good option. It is one possible response. It isn’t always necessary and it should only be applied with great deliberation.
The one thing you can definitely say is that the death penalty should be applied only to capital offenses. Consensual sex is not a capitol offense.
So, the question is why was it applied in Leviticus to same sex interaction between men. Women weren’t mentioned but many assume it applies to them also.
It is likely the restriction on same-sex relations was aimed at same-sex rape. Abuse was common in that period and sexual abuse would have been high on the list. We don’t know how frequently it occurred but according to Genesis 19 same-sex rape was already a thing. It wouldn’t be strange for rape involving a large number of rapist to end in death.
In fact, a gang rape recorded in Judges 19 resulted in the death of the victim. It was heterosexual but the initial intent was homosexual (the rapists initially wanted the husband of the victim) and it wasn’t consensual. It was violent, forceful rape . The principle applies. Extreme abuse occurred and death was the result so the death penalty would fit in that situation.
Sexual abuse was not uncommon in the Old Testament.
- Lamech had two wives, Genesis 4:19.
- Abraham took Hagar as his concubine, Genesis 16. He had a choice, she didn’t.
- Sodom and Gomorrah practiced homosexual gang rape, Genesis 19.
- Lot offered his virgin daughters to be sexually used by gang rapists, Genesis 19.
- Lot’s virgin daughters had sex with their father in order to give him children, Genesis 19.
- Jacob had two wives and two concubines. The concubines had no choice.
- Dinah was raped by Shechem, Genesis 34.
- Onan took advantage of the Levirate law to have sex with his sister-in-law, Tamar, Genesis 38.
- Tamar, disguised as a prostitute, lures her father-in-law (Judah) to have sex with her, Genesis 38.
- When the town discovers Tamar is pregnant, they intend to have her executed, Genesis 38. This illustrates how extreme attitudes prevailed. You could have sex with a prostitute but a widow couldn’t become pregnant out of wedlock.
- Later, David uses his power to take the wife of one of his soldiers, Bathsheba, while the soldier is at war. When she falls pregnant, David has the soldier killed. Both events are recorded in 2 Samual 11.
- Amnon, the son of David, rapes his half sister, Tamar, 2 Samuel 13. He also got a pass.
The point is, according to the biblical record, sexual abuse occurred quite frequently. According to archeology, it was even worse. That shouldn’t surprise us. A man could easily overpower a woman in most cases and a group of men could easily overpower one man.
That’s probably why men were the only ones mentioned in regard to same-sex issues in Leviticus 18. In every case, males caused the trouble.
Eye For An Eye
For those who think gay sex generally and not gay rape is the target of Leviticus 18, they have another problem to solve.
The Bible clearly teaches that penalties for crimes must fit the crime: Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth (Ex. 21:23-27). The teaching here is that you can impose no more than a tooth’s worth of penalty for a tooth’s worth of offense.
Consensual sex is neither violent nor forced. It may offend public sensitivities in certain sectors but that hardly requires the death penalty. In fact, in 99% of the cases it’s done privately, out of sight so we can only know it because we imagine it.
Gay rape, as represented in the Bible, was neither private nor consensual and severe injury or death was the outcome. The death penalty under those conditions might be justified but not for consensual sex.
Jesus didn’t help the fundamentalist cause either since He actually taught that we don’t even have to impose a full penalty. Instead, we can forgive the offense (Matt. 5:38-39). More importantly, what that means is forgiving rather than imposing a full penalty is the more God-like thing to do.
It’s a stretch for anyone to suggest that the death penalty be imposed on consensual sex even when it involves gays.
You have the right to think gay sex is wrong and if you do, you’ll find it difficult to accept same-sex marriage but no one has the right to deny anyone access to marriage even for same-sex couples.
THINK!AboutIt
Leave a Reply