The selective and often hypocritical application of biblical law is a persistent feature in modern discourse. It's a pattern where scripture functions like an à la carte menu: certain laws, particularly those useful for condemning others, are treated as immutable, literal commands, while those that impinge upon personal convenience or lifestyle are readily dismissed. One sees this clearly when, for instance, some heterosexual cis-gender individuals champion a strict interpretation of Levitical passages concerning sexuality to marginalize LGBTQ+ people. Yet, this same demand for literal adherence frequently evaporates when faced with equally explicit commands to challenge the oppression that builds wealth, welcome immigrants, reject greed, avoid dishonesty, or provide sacrificially for the poor—injunctions that might require significant personal or societal change. This selective legalism ultimately undermines its own claims by applying biblical authority inconsistently, weaponizing it against some while shielding the self.
The Promise and Peril of the Dr. Laura Letter
The following letter is a popular and humorous way of showing how this kind of modern literalist legalism does not work, and does not help us truly love God or our neighbors. It was purportedly written to 20th century pop-psychologist Dr Laura Schlesinger. In her radio and TV shows, she offered life advice from her perspective as a culturally conservative Orthodox Jew. She often claimed that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. There are several versions of this letter available on the internet, and I cannot determine which is original. But this seems to be a reliable version:
—--
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. 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?
3. 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 offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour 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 I ask the police to do it?
6. 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? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. 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?
8. 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?
9. 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?
10. 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 and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)
—-
This humorous "Letter to Dr. Laura," effectively exposes the absurdity of this selective literalist legalism. By earnestly inquiring about the practical application of laws concerning owning foreign slaves (Leviticus 25:44), selling daughters (Exodus 21:7), ritual impurity during menstruation (Leviticus 15:19-24), death for Sabbath work (Exodus 35:2), dietary restrictions like shellfish (Leviticus 11:10), physical requirements for priests (Leviticus 21:20), forbidden haircuts (Leviticus 19:27), handling dead pigs (Leviticus 11:6-8), mixing crops or fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), and stoning for blasphemy or burning for incest (Leviticus 24:10-16; 20:14), the letter highlights the impossibility and moral untenability of applying the entire legal code literally today. It cleverly reveals the hypocrisy of those who cherry-pick ancient statutes to condemn others while ignoring equally explicit commands that would radically disrupt their own lives.
What I deeply appreciate about this letter is that it reveals the inner contradictions of those who use the Bible as a literal rule book to condemn others and justify themselves when it suits them, while ignoring or relativizing the parts that do not suit them. And I love how it does this in a sly and humorous way which reveals how hard it is to take seriously moralists who only use portions of their rule book while shrugging away the rest.
What I find problematic, however, is that the clear implication of this letter is that the entire Torah is useless and outdated, and as such has nothing to offer us who try to follow God today. The same passages which hold the laws listed above also tell us to love our neighbors, and welcome the outcast and the immigrant, and care for the vulnerable and the needy, and to establish just prices and practices, and to speak truth and be honest in our contracts, and to avoid vices ranging from murder to selfish envy. And so, if those books are nothing but outdated prejudices, then we must be consistent and say that the whole raft of pro-social virtues and practices are also equally outdated. Or, if we cannot stomach that, and we want to insist on the universal goodness of these pro-social commands while ignoring the commands we find outdated, then we become guilty of the same kind of cherry picking and relativizing as the modern moralists.
The Trajectory towards a Values Trajectory approach
A more fruitful approach to biblical law involves seeking the enduring, universal values rooted in God's character of love and justice that underlie the specific, culturally conditioned commands. The approach advocated here is different from all of these approaches. Our approach to Biblical law is to see them as partial and culturally conditioned expressions of universal values which form the motive and basis for the commands. If we look deeply into each command, within its cultural context, we will find an enduring and universal value which expresses God’s Love. Sometimes that expression remains mostly constant across history and culture, such as commands to take care of the vulnerable, including widows and orphans. Sometimes that expression differs wildly from culture to culture. To understand why, we must first understand the divine goal and motive for why Scripture was inspired as a whole. And that goal, as we have shown repeatedly, is to unite us with the God of Love who is embodied in Christ, so that we may live in Christlike Love.
Recognizing that Scripture points ultimately to Jesus Christ (John 5:39), who embodies and fulfills the Law's deepest intent (Romans 10:4, Matthew 5:17), allows us to interpret these ancient texts through the lens of His life and teaching. Some parts of Scripture more clearly reveal this Christward trajectory, while others reflect the limitations and even the sinful structures of their historical context. Christ Himself indicated that some commands are "weightier" than others (Matthew 23:23), and the New Testament repeatedly shows how the fullness of God's revelation in Christ renders certain aspects of the old covenant obsolete while fulfilling their underlying purpose (e.g., Mark 7:1-23; Acts 15; Hebrews 8-10).
Scripture, in fits and starts, sometimes clearly, sometimes opaquely, points to Jesus Christ as the universal LORD who rules according to the Values he embodies. Yet, some parts of Scripture are "weightier" or more clear and crucial to that job than others. Some parts more fully disclose the Christward trajectory of Scripture, while others obscure this trajectory. And still other parts are preparatory to Christ and rendered obsolete by the coming of God's fullness and mercy in Christ (cf. Matthew 5.17-20; 22.36-40; 23.18-23; Mark 2.21-3.6; 7.1-23; Luke 10.42; Acts 15; Romans 10.4; 13.9; 1Corinthians 13; 15.3; 2Corinthians 3.3-6; Galatians 5.14; Ephesians 1.10; 2.15; Colossians 1.18; 2.8-23; James 2.8-13; Hebrews 7.11-19; 8.7-13; 9.9-10; 10.1-9; 12.27).
And so, Scripture functions as a sign pointing us to fulfillment in Christ, but it is not perfect in itself. Nothing is perfect and complete except the Ultimate Reality of God in Christ, in whom we find our perfection and completion. Our interpretative task, therefore, involves discerning the universal value within the particular expression, allowing the overarching themes of God's universal love, mercy, and justice, most fully revealed in Christ, to guide our understanding and application of even the most challenging texts.
And while there are enduring and universal values at work within all the inspired texts of Scripture, those values often get enacted in very different ways over time. For instance, it is a universal value that God’s People should worship God alone, and live in ways which align with the God they are worshiping. In the Torah, this value meant absolutely avoiding meat sacrificed to idols, and even abstaining from “unclean” animals, such as pork, associated with pagan cults. Yet, in places such as 1Corinthians 8 and Romans 14, the same universal value leads Paul to say that it is permissible to eat any kind of food, even meat sacrificed to idols, because there is only one God, and all food is sanctified by the conscience of the person truly devoted to God. Thus, we seek to interpret more culturally conditioned particular texts through the lens of texts which present the universal values of Scripture most clearly, and which most straightforwardly show us the Christward trajectory the Bible points us toward.
With this in mind, a fundamental interpretive choice in understanding the trajectory of the Biblical Story is whether we will allow texts of limitation and exclusion to interpret and restrict texts of universal love and salvation, or whether we will allow inclusive and universal texts to expand and fulfill the horizon of the texts of exclusion and limitation. For instance, when we encounter texts about judgment, retribution, and damnation, will we see these as “the end of the story” with no hope for redemption beyond Divine condemnation? Or, conversely, will we allow universal texts such as John 3.16-17, 12.32, and 1Corinthians 15.22 to interpret these texts of judgment, so we understand that Divine judgment is ultimately redemptive: A phase in the story of salvation that leads to the hopeful reconciliation of all persons in Christ. I have chosen this latter interpretive path, and understand the texts as universally and inclusively as I can, while staying centered on the concrete person of Jesus, in whom the universal love of God is fully incarnated. Thus, if I err, I try to err on the side of love, grace, and healing.
With all of this in mind, here is an outline of the interpretive strategy– a “Values Trajectory Hermeneutic”– is being proposed here as we engage in the Divine Commands of the Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures. It is called Values Trajectory because it envisions culturally conditioned commands being shot forth from a deep commitment to Divine Values, and then arcing across history in a trajectory from those values. The exact direction those Values take in any given culture will depend on how close or far away they are from the originating cultural conditions of their origin. Thus, to determine that ethical trajectory from source text to current application, we propose these steps:
First, try to understand the text in reference to its original language, making notes of what words are used, what they mean, and what they did not mean. We especially pay attention to words and concepts that are used across Scripture, and how they are used in a fuller sense. For instance, we note that the word “abomination” (Hebrew “to-eh-vah”) pointed out in the letter is used in many different kinds of infractions, from idol worship, to opposite sex and same sex temple prostitution, to sex with animals, to eating shellfish and other species of unclead fish and fowl (Cf. “abomination” in Ex. 8.26; Lev. 18.22, 26-27, 29-30; 20.13; Deut. 7.25-26; 12.31; 13.14; 14.3; 17.1, 4; 18.9, 12; 20.18; 22.5; 23.18; 24.4; 25.16; 27.15; 32.16). Based on this usage, we come to understand “abomination” more as a spiritual category associated with idol worship, rather than a moral category of shame and blame and condemnation.
Second, try to understand the text in reference to its cultural context and how certain practices may have been harming human beings and causing them to be alienated from God. For instance, most ancient gods around Israel were totems for power and pleasure and profit (such as Moloch who personified power, Asherah who personified sexual pleasure, and Mammon who personified selfish profit). Worship of those gods was harmful not simply because they were other gods, but because their values were antithetical to the human flourishing the Ultimate God wants for all God’s children. The true God is Love, revealed ultimately in Christ. And anytime we worship something that is less than, or other than, this Divine Love, we destroy ourselves. This is the cultural situation behind the Biblical prohibition on worshipping other gods, such as Moloch, Mammon, or Asherah.
This leads to the third step: Seek to understand the universal moral value which the commandment is seeking to enact in culturally conditioned ways. Look for ultimate values which are pro-social and align strongly with the Love of God embodied in Jesus. This Love leads us to promote the full flourishing of every human being, and stand against the forces with distort, deny, or destroy that flourishing.
Finally, once we identify the universal values at work in the text, we ask ourselves: Does the command enact these values in a way that still brings about these values in our cultural context? If not, how should we change the application of these principles to embody those Christ-centered values in our world today?
Comparison of Approaches to Biblical Law in Moral Debate
We can compare three different ways of approaching and interpreting Biblical commands. This chart summarizes the core differences identified in the essay regarding how individuals and groups approach biblical laws, particularly those from the Old Testament, in contemporary moral discussions:
Examples of Values Trajectory Applied to Torah
So with this chart in mind, I would like to unpack some possible ways that the culturally conditioned laws of Torah referenced in the letter are based in enduring universal values when we dig into the cultural context they came out of. And then I want to paint some possible ways these values might be enacted in a 21st century global technological society in ways that are pro-social. Note that Biblical scholars often disagree in small and large ways about the cultural contexts and motives behind Biblical laws, so these reconstructions and re-applications should be discussed and debated. Nevertheless, here are some possible ways of following the values within these laws without falling into moralist legalism, and without falling into ignoring or relativizing them.
With this “Values Trajectory Hermeneutic”— seeking the universal value in the culturally specific, interpreted through Christ's Love— let's revisit the laws mentioned in the letter, acknowledging scholarly debate and the tentative nature of such reconstructions:
Leviticus 18:22 (Male Same-Sex Acts as "Abomination"): In its Ancient Near East context, this prohibition likely targeted practices associated with idolatrous cults, shrine prostitution, or acts perceived as violating patriarchal lineage structures, rather than addressing committed, loving same-sex relationships as understood today. The underlying values might include rejecting idolatry and preventing the exploitation of predatory sexuality which uses others for selfish gratification. A Christ-centered re-application focuses on mutual love, faithfulness, consent, and non-exploitation within all relationships, upholding the dignity of all persons while moving beyond prohibitions tied to ancient cultic contexts and patriarchal assumptions irrelevant to modern, consensual partnerships.
Leviticus 25:44 (Owning Foreign Slaves): Slavery was a deeply embedded, brutal reality in the ancient world. While the Torah permitted owning foreign slaves, it also introduced regulations (however inadequate by modern standards) that were often more humane than surrounding cultures, particularly regarding fellow Israelites. It regulated an existing institution rather than instituting it as a positive good. The underlying value is difficult to pinpoint beyond perhaps a flawed attempt at order or regulating an existing evil. The unequivocal re-application today, following the liberating trajectory of Scripture culminating in Christ (cf. Galatians 3:27-28), is the condemnation of all forms of slavery and exploitation, affirming the equal dignity of all people made in God's image.
Exodus 21:7 (Selling Daughters): This regulated a desperate practice arising from extreme poverty in a patriarchal society, offering minimal protections (compared to male slaves or potential abandonment) for daughters sold into servitude, often ensuring they weren't merely used as disposable labor but might attain a more secure position within the household. The underlying value, however compromised, is the protection of the most vulnerable within an unjust system. The contemporary application involves combating poverty, empowering women and girls, and utterly rejecting any commodification of human beings, especially children.
Leviticus 15:19-24 (Menstrual Impurity): These laws belong to a complex system of ritual purity related to bodily emissions and proximity to life/death forces, regulating access to sacred space and rituals. They were not primarily about hygiene or moral deficiency. The underlying value relates to reverence for the sacred, in particular the sacred feminine role as those who birth and nurture life, and maintaining symbolic distance and awe for the means of that life giving power found in the blood (cf. “the life is in the blood” of Leviticus 17.11). Christ rendered these ritual purity distinctions obsolete (Mark 7:19, Acts 10). The re-application affirms the goodness of the human body and its natural functions, respecting the sacredness of the body and making space for bodily autonomy, while rejecting any notion of ritual or moral uncleanness associated with menstruation.
Leviticus 1:9 (Pleasing Odor of Sacrifice): This anthropomorphic language expressed God's acceptance of sincere worship offered according to the covenant stipulations. The value lies in God's desire for heartfelt worship and devotion. In the New Covenant, the application shifts to offering "spiritual sacrifices" (Romans 12:1, Hebrews 13:15-16) – our lives, praise, and good deeds – understanding that God delights in the inner attitude of faith and love, not literal smells.
Exodus 35:2 (Death for Sabbath Work): The harsh penalty underscored the absolute centrality of the Sabbath in Israel's covenant identity, signifying rest, trust, liberation, and dedication to God. The value lies in prioritizing God, community, and restorative rest over constant production. The re-application involves embracing the principle of Sabbath rest for spiritual and physical well-being, while following Christ, the "Lord of the Sabbath," who emphasized its life-giving and merciful aspects over rigid legalism, and rejecting capital punishment. A further application may entail the sacrifice of “putting to death” activities which destroy our work-sabbath balance, and giving up constant striving for worldly “success” at the cost of our health and our relationships with God and our loved ones.
Leviticus 11 (Shellfish Abomination): Part of the dietary laws distinguishing Israel and symbolizing holiness as separation and order. This stated that pigs and other animals were unclean, and contact with carcasses conveyed ritual impurity requiring purification. In addition, shellfish, lacking fins and scales, fell outside the "clean" categories for water creatures. The value lies in covenant identity and submitting all life to God, even what we eat. Some scholars also hypothesize that certain animals and foods were associated strongly with worship of certain idolatrous gods in the ancient world, either as forms of personification of those gods, or because there was a sacrificial system using those animals tied to those gods. Thus, in that culture, eating certain animals might identify you as an adherent of particular gods. Thus, rejecting the food was tantamount to rejecting the religious cult and god(s) associated with them. In this mode, re-application of these values takes two divergent lines: First, we must recognize Christ declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19); Christians express covenant identity through faith and ethical living, not dietary restrictions (Romans 14). Second, we must ask if we are called to abstain from other foods or activities or products which are associated with idolatrous and unjust systems. For instance, if a food is produced by a nation that is committing vast injustice or war crimes, we may want to abstain from purchasing that and supporting the unjust system it comes from. Likewise, if a product is produced with child labor or wage slavery, or if it comes from a company that mistreats their employees, we may want to forego or replace those products.
Leviticus 21:20 (Sight Defect & Altar): Physical wholeness was symbolically required for priests mediating in the sacred space, reflecting God's perfection. The value lies in reverence for holiness and the seriousness of mediation between God and humanity, and our God’s desire for us to be healthy and whole, free from defect or disability. Re-application acknowledges Christ as the perfect High Priest and affirms the priesthood of all believers, rejecting any exclusion based on physical disability and focusing on spiritual and moral integrity. It also entails living like Jesus did, as an instrument of healing, to bring healing and wholeness to all we come in contact with, rather than rejecting or excluding them.
Leviticus 19:27 (Hair Trimming): Likely prohibited specific pagan mourning or cultic hairstyles, serving as a visible marker of exclusive loyalty to YHWH. The value is avoiding idolatry and maintaining covenant identity. Re-application involves discerning and resisting contemporary cultural pressures or ideologies that contradict Christian faith and values (spiritual/ethical syncretism), rather than focusing on specific, culturally relative external appearances like hairstyles. In particular, we may ask whether certain styles of dress are inherently demeaning or dehumanizing, and whether they mark someone with the dignity they deserve as God’s children, or mark them as commodities to consume and throw away.
Leviticus 19:19 (Mixing Crops/Threads): Reasons for this are debated (maintaining created kinds, avoiding pagan rites, symbolic purity). Values may include respecting God's order and rejecting syncretism and idolatry. Re-application focuses on avoiding harmful spiritual and ethical mixtures, not literal agricultural or textile combinations. In addition, the same kinds of concerns and practices around how we dress and what modes of production we support arise (detailed above).
Leviticus 24:10-16 (Stoning for Blasphemy) / Leviticus 20:14 (Burning for Incest): These represent maximum penalties within the ancient Israelite theocracy for offenses seen as fundamentally undermining covenant relationship, divine honor, or social fabric. Values include reverence for God and protection of community/family boundaries. Re-application upholds these values but absolutely rejects capital punishment and cruel methods, following Christ's ethic of restorative justice, mercy, and forgiveness wherever possible, while still protecting the vulnerable. But, as we saw on Exodus 35.2, this may entail a symbolic “death” to practices associated with idolatry and injustice, which treat humans as means to some selfish end, rather than as children of God worthy of dignity and respect. When we encounter practices– social, economic, political, sexual, religious– which demean and deny and destroy God’s children, we must put those practices to death, and replace them with practices which bring life and sustain communities.
So, as we have seen, contemporary culture often appeals to biblical laws in a very selective way. It's common to see certain commands, particularly those reinforcing pre-existing biases, wielded as literal, unchanging rules, while others that challenge comfortable lifestyles—regarding wealth, poverty, hospitality, or personal conduct—are conveniently ignored, allegorized, or dismissed as culturally irrelevant. Rather than selectively applying ancient laws literally or dismissing them entirely, a Christ-centered approach seeks the enduring values of love, justice, and holiness beneath the culturally specific expressions. This allows us to honor the trajectory of Scripture towards its fulfillment in Christ, discerning how God's unchanging character calls us to live faithfully and compassionately in our own complex, modern world.
No comments:
Post a Comment