We recognize the “barbarities” of the ancient Israelites. One wonders whether we recognize our own.

So true George.

Tony
I’ll leave the Christological implications of Leviticus to you. The NT confounds and frustrates me lately, whereas the OT has opened up in so many lovely ways.

Shawn
Thanks. We’ll see if you feel the same way in a few posts.

The reason I mention it is because James’ comments express what many don’t like about theonomists, namely, their support of some of the less pleasant penalties of the law (e.g., stoning adulterers and whatnot). The theonomists are not pro-genocide, by the way, seeing those commandments as one-time mandates given to the nation of Israel when it entered the promised land.

By the same token, theonomists rather rigorously critique those of us who pick up on themes of the law (i.e., equity, debt forgiveness, kindness to strangers, etc.) but don’t seek to embody them in legislative codes modeled after the Old Testament’s own. This does seem to be a matter of consistency: If you’re going to use the law, do so with hermeneutical integrity; don’t just pick and choose what fits you.

So, assuming the theonomists are wrong and the OT law is not the model or blueprint for Christian attempts to influence the political and legal structures of modern society, what is a non-arbitrary hermeneutic for using the law?

It seems that we have all found a way to dialogue about these issues (way to go, Reed!) – and it also follows logically that if we have found a way to unite, then the apocalypse is upon us. :0)

I did want to chime in about this statement:

“Christians, it seems to me, should be both/and when it comes to political issues, not either/or. In other words, Christians should be both for just social structures and for personal responsibility, both for good business practices and for the relief of poverty, etc. The Left has taken the social side of the equation, and the Right has taken the individual side. Christians should take both.”

As much as it grates on me that the Republican party is co-opting the Evangelicals in this country (many of whom I am quite fond, for the record), it would be untoward to deny that the mainline Prostetant churches have been the platform for politcal leftists for many years now. It seems that the Spirit of God that brings unity to the body ought to also bring wise and tempered social and political discourse as well (should we call for a run on the independent platform?).

Reed,

You have articulated what I was getting at in my sardonic post about how we use the Old Testament in a very serious (and probably infinately more productive) way. Thanks, great post.

Shawn

This is a thought-provoking post, one which should unsettle Christians on both sides of the political spectrum.

I especially liked this sentence: “What contemporary implications exist for a text which discusses premeditated murder in the same language as the unrestrained slaughter of created animals (Lev. 17:6) or a holiness code which equates the consequences of sexual immorality (Lev. 18) with those of defrauding the poor (Lev. 19)?”

Christians, it seems to me, should be both/and when it comes to political issues, not either/or. In other words, Christians should be both for just social structures and for personal responsibility, both for good business practices and for the relief of poverty, etc. The Left has taken the social side of the equation, and the Right has taken the individual side. Christians should take both.

The problem is, as James points out, that we moderns have social and ethical commitments that sit uneasily with the text of Leviticus.

So, really, there are two issues here: (1) Transcending the divisions between Left and Right and formulating a holistic Christian ethic that (2) resonates more than alienates in a modern historical context. Of course, we might add a third issue: (3) Formulating an ethic that can transcend and critique modern ethical prejudices too. We recognize the “barbarities” of the ancient Israelites. One wonders whether we recognize our own.

George

However, I believe what we CAN’T do is continue lifting the passages we like from the Law (whether it be the sex stuff or the Jubilee year) whilst pretending the stuff that makes us uncomfortable simply isn’t there. This isn’t to say we should follow its letter (a ludicrous, impossible and potentially sinful idea) but I think it does mean we can ask better questions about the moral vision of the ancients who wrote this stuff down. The two audacious presuppositions I listed above, I hope, will be a good start. We can add to them the stupefying notion that 3) somehow the Law’s maintenance made the holy presence of God possible amongst his people.

More and more it seems to me that the Christian walk is one that attempts the dangerous path of paradox, and the paradox of the Pentuetech that you describe here is one of the big daddy paradoxes of the Bible. My problem is that while I love the passages about social justice, about Jubilee, about God’s preimminent concern for the poor, the stranger, the widow and the orphan, I hate the passages about homosexuality, and genocide, and stoning adulteress’ and about not wearing clothing made of a cotton/wool mix, and a hundred others. To quote Walter Brueggemann, “I am an arena of contestation” when it comes to the Levitical law.