Leviticus interpretive questions

[cw_theology]

I have two questions when it comes to interpreting Leviticus

1.When I approach a passage in Leviticus how can I determine if a specific law or passage is ceremonial, moral, or civil? as sometimes it seems to switch back and forth in the matter of 2 verses. Take for example Leviticus 19. Are there any clues right there in the passage that help me know?

2. Does the meaning of "unclean" change through the book? Both in Leviticus 15 it says bodily disharches make one unclean (but obviously that meant ceremonial uncleanness not moral guilt), yet Leviticus 18 says that adulterery also makes one unclean (but that obviously incurs moral guilt not just ceremonial), so how should I interpret that word "unclean"?

 

[Ploutos]

I'll step out on a limb here. From elsewhere in Scripture it is abundantly clear that adultery is a serious sin both in the OT and in the NT - it's part of the moral law which remains in binding force. Adultery is in the Ten Commandments, and is part of many if not most references to the Ten Commandments in the NT (Matthew 5, 1 Thessalonians 4, Romans 1, etc...).

In Leviticus, a lot of moral sins are addressed by way of their implications within the theocratic society of Israel and so there are civil and ceremonial implications that might not apply in exactly the same way today. But, you can often still distinguish the different categories of law by their penalties. The penalties prescribed for sexual sin in Leviticus are much more severe than the "penalties" prescribed for bodily discharges - they're not even in the same category.

 

[cw_theology]

I'm going to reword my question a bit as I think it's a bit confusing as it is now. Here is an updated version

I have noticed that in Leviticus the word "unclean" changes meaning through the book. This has presented some challenges for me in interpretation. In Leviticus 13 we read the someone was unclean if they had leprosy (yet having leprosy is obviously not a moral sin against the conscience), and in Leviticus 18 it says that adulterery makes one unclean (but that incurs actual moral guilt, not just ceremonial). So how would the Jews have been able to know that leprosy is not a moral sin against the conscience, given the fact that the same word "unclean" is used to describe it as is used for adultery (something which is a moral sin against the conscience)? What is the interpretive clue they could have used?

 

[Ploutos]

I'm going to reword my question a bit as I think it's a bit confusing as it is now. Here is an updated version

I have noticed that in Leviticus the word "unclean" changes meaning through the book. This has presented some challenges for me in interpretation. In Leviticus 13 we read the someone was unclean if they had leprosy (yet having leprosy is obviously not a moral sin against the conscience), and in Leviticus 18 it says that adulterery makes one unclean (but that incurs actual moral guilt, not just ceremonial). So how would the Jews have been able to know that leprosy is not a moral sin against the conscience, given the fact that the same word "unclean" is used to describe it as is used for adultery (something which is a moral sin against the conscience)? What is the interpretive clue they could have used?

Why do you think the meaning of the word changes? I don't see any difference in its usage. "Unclean" means separated by the pollution of sin from God and from all that is holy.

 

[cw_theology]

Why do you think the meaning of the word changes? I don't see any difference in its usage. "Unclean" means separated by the pollution of sin from God and from all that is holy.

Well when I say it changes I mean that the word in itself does not make a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws. I give the example of leprosy but there are other examples of things they are commanded not to do such as touch an unclean animals, yet as Henry points out in his commentary on Leviticus 11 it was necessary to do so to remove them in some circumstances. How would the Israelites know that this was mere ceremonial uncleanness?

 

[Ploutos]

Well when I say it changes I mean that the word in itself does not make a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws. I give the example of leprosy but there are other examples of things they are commanded not to do such as touch an unclean animals, yet as Henry points out in his commentary on Leviticus 11 it was necessary to do so to remove them in some circumstances. How would the Israelites know that this was mere ceremonial uncleanness?

Why would they need to know it was ceremonial uncleanness? Uncleanness is uncleanness. If you're unclean, you have to follow the prescribed rituals to me restored. If you do something like adultery or incest, you'll probably also be cut off or killed, depending on the exact sin. But there are not different types of uncleanness; just varying rituals depending on how the uncleanness was incurred.

The ceremonial laws were there for the same reason as the moral laws: to show the Israelites their sin and the separation from a holy God that it entails. It's just that the ceremonial laws specifically point forward to Christ through types and shadows and represented a mode of operations that was done away with when his work was completed. There is a redemptive aspect to the cycle of sin, uncleanness, and restoration that is unique to the ceremonial laws.

 

[Phil D.]

The Levitical law dealt with remedial actions for a variety of things that rendered one ceremonially unclean. Some were moral in nature, others not, and still others were both. The moral issues are additionally dealt with in judicial laws related to the Ten Commandments.

 

[MW]

The word doesn't change its meaning. It is likely that as the reader applies it to different things he starts to see that the word has a very broad range of meaning, which is something the book itself intends to convey. Israel is a holy people to the Lord. All of life is under His Lordship.

I wouldn't be too quick to apply to Leviticus those distinctions which more clearly emerge as a consequence of the new testament. The book must be interpreted in its own light. It is possible to see a difference between moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws, but they can't really be teased apart without affecting the way the book should be read.