What does leviticus ban

They treated other same-sex acts as separate, lesser issues of lust. Male same-sex intercourse was prohibited because it subverted patriarchal gender norms of male dominance in a society that devalued women. Does this mean the Bible is a misogynistic text?

But even though the Old Testament law does not treat men and women equally, there are countercultural elements within the Old Testament, including the presence of women leaders.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form. Join the List. We're a donor-funded movement. There seem to be three primary ways to handle this question. First, one could say that this is a contradiction, and leave it at that.

A second option is Dispensationalism, which teaches that Christ fulfilled, not did away with, the law, and therefore, if we are in Him, we are no longer bound to it, via imputed righteousness and the new dispensation. Third, one could go with Covenant Theology, which teaches that the purpose of the law was to point to Christ, and therefore, the law is never done away for that purpose, though we are free from the confines of the law.

Again, I apologize for the length, but this is a subject which rarely receives a thorough treatment in most popular circles.

I hope this proves helpful! These laws were for Jewish people only. When the early gentile church asked the apostles for guidance as far as which laws to adhere to, they were told only these: To abstain from sexual immorality, eating strangulated animals, and partaking in blood. Jesus is recorded as having made it clear that he was not doing away with any of the old laws — just the legalism and misaligned spirit behind them.

I think it makes a fair amount of sense to have restricted the laundry list of thou shallt nots, but you can find plenty of people who will make equally impassioned assertions as to which other ones still apply. The question is, what constitutes sexual immorality? Ummm, it did say do not have incestuous sex in the bible…also, the thing about the tattoo as far as I know, is in the bible. It is clearly rubbish. Sexual sins have always been as they were defined in Leviticus.

Jesus never changed them, although he might have added to them sermon on the mount, lusting and divorce. I also apologize if my comment appears choppy or repetitive.

Is it an exhaustive list, or just examples? What are the principles involved in these rules? Is having sex with a woman on her period really as serious as sleeping with your mother? And are any of these or the category as a whole obsoleted by the same principles as now allow us to eat shellfish or wear clothing of mixed fibers or touching an unclean animal? Are you fucking kidding me? All of you stupid, selfish, theists need to accept that your fucking religion is a selfish ideology created by man in order to make people feel better about the fucked up shit they do.

Ignorance is a sad situation and even more so when used as a means to discredit and undermine Christianity or any other entity, and then utilized to propagate atheist rhetoric. The laws that you refer to, were not established by Christianity nor any of the Apostles, but, by the authorities of the time and over a long period. They served to control a barbaric and ignorant people, and not unlike what happened in our own societies during the past few hundred years. Please do your research before displaying any further ignorance for propaganda sake.

However, as the discussion here has indicated, there are an awful lot of Christians who seem to think that they or some subset of them are, in fact, applicable under Christ and the teachings of the Apostles to modern followers of Jesus. You appear to disagree with that. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. What constitutes sexual immorality? Procreation and intimacy being the result. But did you know that God also created the sexual act between a committed husband and wife to be a mirror-image of His own relationship with the believer and church?

I will explain, trying to be as brief as possible. The husband does not want to be alone, so he pursues a wife. God also, wants fellowship with us, and pursues us by His Holy Spirit.

The man woos her, courts her, makes himself known to her, shows her his love, giving her the perogative to accept or reject him. When Christ is presented to a new believer, he or she also has the decision to accept Him as their personal Savior, or to reject Him.

If she decides to accept the man, they make vows to each other, committing the rest of their lives to love each other, and in Christendom the man vows to take care of her and sacrifice his own selfish desires for the new goal of always doing what is best for her and the family. Likewise, when the believer accepts Christ as their personal Savior, God becomes their protector, provider, and heavenly guide, and the believer vows to honor, respect, and submit to Him.

After lifetime commitment has taken place marriage , the woman allows the man to enter her, making them one, physically. The experience of being one together physically creates deep joy culminating in copulation, and eventually, procreation. It is meant to be a beautiful, holy expression of intimacy, both spiritually with God, and physically between a husband and wife. Any aberration of this original plan is sexual immorality. Just as we worship God by allowing His Holy Spirit to enter us, so we would be committing idolatry by allowing another foreign spirit to enter us demonic spirits, etc.

Fornication is sex without the commitment by either party, and mirrors the sin of idol worship, in that the woman is essentially mirroring the act of letting a foreign spirit enter her. Homosexuality is sex with a partner that is not intended to bring about new life, nor does it mirror the original design. He cares for her, has pledged His love to her, and receives her respect, devotion, and obedience as acts of worship. Having respect for, being devoted to, and obeying another entity in the place of God is idolatry.

Therefore, sex between a believing husband and wife is, in essence, an act of worship. Sex outside of this plan, is in essence, idolatry.

It also seems a fairly limited interpretation. In Genesis 2, the creation of the woman is to be a help and company to the man, not specifically as a sexual partner. But wives rightfully also pursue husbands, for much the same reason.

The woman submits to the husband as we must submit to God. My wife and I protect, provide for, and guide each other, as well as honoring, respecting, and, as appropriate in love, submitting to each other. And suddenly your metaphorical becomes the literal. And if it is, is that true only for women, not for men, or is there a different metaphor to use for them?

Nor do I believe that intentionally non-procreative sex between two people of the same gender or two people of different genders is inherently sinful; to think so raises sexuality and procreation to a far higher significance even an idolatrous one than seems warranted in Biblical or commonsensical frameworks. It is not far-fetched if you see the role of a wife in a marriage to be respectful, devoted, and obedient.

That sounds more like a parent-child relationship than that between two spouses. Laborare est orarare to work is to pray , as they say in the monastery. Sorry, I tried to be brief, but I also tried to be as clear in my explanation as possible. God bless you. And I appreciate your doing so, and the spirit in which you gave this explanation.

Sexual relations are a gift, if you will, to let us not be alone, and are meant to be pursued in a positive, constructive, fashion that builds relationships, nurtures and supports one another — in love, in other words — just as all our other interactions with our fellow humans should be. If we were to accept thee laws on Sexual morality as stringent and unbreakable laws, I would really like to know how the earth was populated after God created Adam and Eve?

This is why whenever the children of Israel practiced idolatry, she is likened to an adulterous wife, or a prostitute.

The new life created is the two becoming one flesh. Or is it much more simply that breaking the covenant between Israel and God was akin to one of the most fundamental infidelities enough to make the Decalogue , that of breaking the marriage covenant? That the imagery used is that of woman breaking the rules is in keeping with the harsher punishments elsewhere in the Bible for women acting in a sexually impure fashion.

Heck, their union seems to be as much a matter of necessity as anything else. The only reason they seem to be together is that, at first, there was nobody else to be with. The mishmosh of allegories in the Creation sequences in Genesis are informative but not a literal truth.

God says he is infallible, without error, his word is holy. So we if we condemn homosexuality as it says in the bible, we also must kill all disobedient children, kill women pregnant out of wedlock, punish people for working on the seventh day of the week, and kill all unbelievers. It also says prophets who make false prophesies are condemned to death, along with all of their followers.

This means all mormons are condemned to death and hell fire, because Joseph smith prophesied that the civil war would involve all the nations of the earth among his too numerous to name, false prophesies Also if we are to defend the year old earth theory, we also have to defend flat earth theory, and that the earth is the center of the solar system.

Just wondering about reconciling killing women who become pregnant out of wedlock with the fact that Mary became pregnant out of wedlock to bear Jesus? To say the Bible is the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God which should be interpreted literally does not mean it should all be interpreted in the exact same way. This is not knowledge readily accessible to the layman not out of secrecy, but rather out of lack of interest on the part of the average layman , but there is an entire discipline within textual scholarship called Hermeneutics, which is more or less only studied by lawyers and Biblical scholars.

Within this art, one of the key things to consider is textual interpretation is context, and unless one spends some significant time thinking about it or studying Hermeneutics, one does not realize just how much context influences things. And, context is not a singular thing; rather, there are dozens of contexts to consider. If any of these are flawed, it can skew the meaning significantly. These are different literary genres, and should be interpreted in different manners. The meaning may be literally true, but it is not expressed in the same senses.

Likewise, the Bible is not a single book, but a collection of 66 books, including several genres common to their respective cultural climates. All of these things need to be taking into account when seeking to understand Scripture. Further, I want to emphasize that the Bible is inspired, NOT the worldview of the writers or their presuppositions. The only arguments that the Bible endorses flat earth I am aware of are from a couple places in Revelation e.

Even assuming the entire book is not a metaphor for the ongoing battle between good and evil, which will ultimately be resolved when Christ returns which many solid Christians believe , this is an apocalyptic vision being reported, so it is quite possible that God catered the vision to what John would be able to understand so that the main points would be communicated. But, even to interpret it as a literal flow of events, there s no reason to affirm flat Earth.

Further, with our communication grid, the internet, news media, etc. But, of course, a first century Jew living on Patmos would not have understood this level of connectivity, so God communicated it to him in a way that he would understand. Lastly, I want to address your charge about the Levitical law. In its cultural context, this law was the legal code of the nation of Israel, individual portions of which may or may not be applicable to a modern reader.

Further, in the Biblical context, it is at a point in history where God is demonstrating to humanity that no external motivators can fix the problem of sin. God created humanity in a perfect condition; they sinned so, being in a perfect place will not prevent the problem. God set apart a family to be the ancestors of a chosen people; they sinned both the ancestors and the people. God provided their every need after he delivered them from oppression, and custom created a culture for them; they sinned so, God miraculously intervening in our lives will not prevent sin.

The only option remaining to fix the problem is individual transformation, which is the whole point of Christ, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and redemption. Christ died for sinners like us, so that we could, eventually, be made holy before God. But, and this needs to be emphasized, God already knew all this; He went through all of this to show us that only Christ can work to solve the problem of sin. So, interpreted in this context, there is no reason to suspect that God still expects us to do everything the Levitical law commands.

Some of the laws in Leviticus were told to the Jews to either protect their health, or make sure that they set themselves apart from the heathen cultures around them. The rest are a set of moral laws of things that put people and their relationships in jeopardy. Some parts of Leviticus can, and still are followed in spirit. For example, we still try to keep our bodies healthy, as they are temples of the Lord.

We still pray in a distinct fashion to separate ourselves from non-Christians. We dress modestly, and make sure that our outward appearance does not misrepresent Christianity. We also avoid the more entrenched sins, like incest, murder, lying, etc.

Side Note: Catholics do not believe they are drinking wine, therefore, if they are correct, then there would be neither direct nor indirect violation of Leviticus. If they are wrong, then they have other problems, but drinking wine would not be one, because the believe it is the blood of Christ.

Also, just because there are some laws that are no longer directly followed in modern times, it does not mean that all should not be followed. We still say it is not good to steal, lie, or commit incest. In spite of this, we have people claiming that all of Leviticus is wrong, or being largely ignored. Even if there were parts of Leviticus diet and worship that we no longer follow in modern times, that does not mean that all of Leviticus cannot be used as basis for moral behavior.

You should take each group of laws as a whole. If any of the sexual sins sounds like it still applies, then I purport that all still do. Instead, it is argued that because some are no longer worthwhile, we cannot assume that any given one is still worthwhile. Last Hussar I believe that any form of sex that removes all potential for human life to spring up is against chastity. The only form of contraception that can be used then, is Natural Family Planning.

I think that the most important thing to remember is that the laws written by the Levites were written during the 40 years roaming in the desert.

They had escaped from Egypt and had lost all of their male infants at the Egyptians hands. One of the laws that the creator of this list did not include was the one that stated that unruly children should be stoned to death. I think that one in itself should tell you something about where the Levites were coming from.

Anytime someone did not act in a way that the Levites felt appropriate, a new law would be written. Here is my challenge; if anyone can find one thing that Jesus said about homosexuality, let me know. An interesting thought.

As to your challenge, about as close as Jesus gets to it that I can find is Matthew , which discusses divorce, and has the God-made-them-man-and-woman thing. That implies heteronormality, but is far, far short of a moral condemnation of homosexuality. Thank you for calling me out on my BS. I would also have to say that while you are correct, that was not the primary point of my comment. Perhaps the categories are not internally sacrosanct, but that does not change the fact that to some degree or another the laws are still followed today.

For example, I would cite Leviticus if my child wanted to get a tattoo. I would tell them that Leviticus forbids such body modifications. I would then tell them that Leviticus was written within a cultural context, but in spite of that, it holds true today. While it is not inherently sinful to get a tattoo, doing it for pride or lust could be. It also could send a wrong message. It is our job as Christians to be witnesses to Christ, and thus we should set ourselves apart from the pitfalls of modern society.

So yes, Leviticus is not necessarily a be-all end-all reason not to follow certain practices, I think it is a good source for citation, along with a little philosophy. I would say that, to some degree or another, some of the laws are still followed by some people today.

If my daughter were to consider a tattoo, my objections to her would more likely be practical how do you think it will look in fifty years? Agreed that it could represent more fundamental issues of pride, but I think that topic is better addressed more broadly. My suspicion about the tattoo injunction in Leviticus is not that it is a condemnation of pride or lust, per se, but a way to set the Israelites apart from others — the Egyptians, for example, or various peoples of the Holy Land — who used them.

The design is a brighly-coloured clockwork mechanism. Now, when I look at my arm, I see something bright and cheerful, which lifts the gloom and panic and prevents me from cutting myself. I also see the clockwork mechanism, which reminds me that time is precious and I should try to live life to the full. Is that so wrong? It is a positive thing that works for me. I do not consider it vanity, merely a way of raising my spirits back to roughly where they should be, when times are hard.

Oh yes, I wholeheartedly agree. That is why I said that as Christians, we need to be careful of what we represent. If anything could be taken as contrary to Christ, then we should be wary of that thing. Corinthians Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble. Also, my point is clearly not that All people follow Leviticus. Nor all Christians. Merely that idealy, to some degree, Leviticus would still be followed by Christians of today.

I would hope that anyone with strong moral beliefs would have rational, philosophical reasons for those beliefs. I tend to agree as well the precepts of Natural Law Morality, though more as personal guidelines, since they remain subject to a fair amount of subjective interpretation. Bc the pagans would cut and mark themselves in fervor desperately trying to invoke their gods. That said, the tribal aspects of body art seem to be significantly diminished, and quite plausibly not even of concern for setting a bad example.

God gave us our bodies, and he expects us to respect them and be happy with them. Henry — Certainly your prerogative to interpret things that way. I think tattoos can be respectful of the body, or even be seen to enhancing it some are pretty awful, too, but something similar might be said for a lot of other body decor of a less permanent nature. Remember this was in OT which is applicable to Jews also.

In Matt 5, Jesus states that he came to fulfill the law. In the remainder of that chapter, Christ goes on to expound upon the Levitican law. But I say whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…… This chapter goes on and touch on adultery, marriage, treatment of enemies, etc…. There is no way to remember all of these laws. In fact this list does not even touch on some of the sins that we man have since imagined in our hearts and invented.

In Matt , there is a story of legalism. This young man wanted to do just enough to get into heaven. But God wants our heart.

If we truly love and trust God, we will be lead by Him and his love and not by a list of laws. Jesus death on the cross replaces all of the blood sacrifices called for in the law. His death was for all of us. His love does not discriminate for we are all born in sin. Salvation is for all who will believe and accept his gift. This is the good news that we are commissioned to share.

Sunday School Teacher: Not that the Greatest Commandments are by any means easy to live up to, but they seem more realistic and more of the heart than the legalism of adherence to the Levitican et al. They engage us to think and feel about what we are doing and, more importantly, why , rather than obeying a set of programmed responses.

Which would make you think that all the kerfuffle over Leviticus etc. And …? While there are a few Christians and Atheists, that I personally know, who can have astute, thoughtful discussions about the Bible, many simply quote it to fit their needs or to prove their point. No one wants to take the time to actual think; who does that? Peter — Thanks. Leviticus and all the Mosaic law books and chapters in the Old Testament are a fascinating insight into both Bronze Age Israel one group of tribes in particular and into the origins of later traditions that come into play with Christianity.

Thanks for the informative list, and for keeping up with the responses. Between touchdowns as my gold diggers beat on the Saints. I notice that fathers seem to be allowed to have sex with daughters… did you miss one or is that ok according to the bible? Just curious to the omission. It would also presumably be sex outside of marriage fornication , which I think is referenced outside of Leviticus if you married your daughter, 34 applies again as well.

Seems to me in idle contemplation that many people, organizations and social structures private and governmental might possibly have an issue with this.

They succeed in everything they do. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true. On the other hand, whoever obeys the Law and teaches others to do the same, will be great in the Kingdom of heaven. No, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter.

We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred. They will be cruel and hate what is good. Stay away from people like that!

Since we as Americans have the right to practice our religion, in the freedom of our religion so long as we are not breaking the public laws of America, we have the right to do as our God says and stay away from the people He says to stay away from. Historically, scholars have often understood this as a warning against pagan practices of mourning.

But language scholar John Huehnergard and ancient-Israel expert Harold Liebowitz argue that tattooing was understood differently in ancient times. Huehnergard and Liebowitz note that the appearance of the ban on incisions—or tattoos—comes right after words clearly related to mourning, perhaps confirming the original theory. They also note that there are other examples in Leviticus and Exodus where two halves of a verse address different issues.

So that could be the case here, too. What tattoos were apparently often used for in ancient Mesopotamia was marking enslaved people and, in Egypt, as decorations for women of all social classes.

Egyptian captives were branded with the name of a god, marking them as belongings of the priests or pharaoh. But devotees might also be branded with the name of the god they worshiped.

Privacy Policy Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message. Ancient rabbinic debates produced a variety of different theories about the meaning of the prohibition on tattooing. The meaning of the prohibition on tattooing may have shifted over time, of course. But in ancient times, it might never had been about mourning practices at all.