1/02/2007

Shave and a Hair Cut

You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. - Lev 19:27

Why do we Christians ignore this command but stand firmly on those preceding and following it? We would never condone fortune telling or interpreting omens (v26). We do not allow cutting our bodies for the dead (v28) or making our daughters prostitutes (v29). So why is my haircut and clean-shaven face OK? Any feedback is greatly desired!

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

We also eat rare meat (v. 26) and we don't bring rams of offering anymore (v. 21). This section being a part of Mosaic law, it is full of commands that are specifically for the Jews under the Old Covenant (ie. before Jesus fulfills the types and shadows that are given in such Mosaic Laws). Verse 28, that refers to cutting the bodies for the dead is a reference to a pagan practice of tattooing that the Jews were to keep distant from to set themselves apart. Much like the fact that we cut our hair, it is very hard to point to v. 28 to condemn all tattoos today.

I believe the reason you see so many examples within the same chapter of things we would not associate with today is because all of the Mosaic Law was an expansion of the Ten Commandments, and all are in keeping with God's character. So for example the condemnation of fortune telling stands today because there is no way you could argue that relying on fortune telling is not having another god before God. And making your daughter a prostitute would clearly contradict the commandment to not commit adultery. But the other laws that had to due with custom and keeping the Jews distinct in appearance and practice from the other cultures around them are repealed by Jesus, who has made Jew and Gentile one through himself.

tex said...

m-dogg, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm still not convinced...

I see a transition in the text between verses 25 and 26. Everything before verse 26 is societal law -- the legal code of crime and punishment. The example you gave of the ram as a guilt offering in v21 is the consequence for the act done in v20 (sleeping with another man's slave). These laws don't apply to us directly because we are under U.S. law (although they should be the foundation and guide for our laws). We still agree raping someone else's slave is wrong, but we have a different law to handle it - a bunch of time in prison (for the pervert and the slave owner). And we agree with this verse that the woman who is raped should not get punished. We still contend this man needs a guilt offering--it's just that we know Jesus can handle this better than a ram.

Verses 26 and following transition into a different type of law--moral law. These tell us what God says is good and what God says is bad. No consequences are given because they are not an offense against others to be punished by fellow people; rather, offenses against God, which will incur his wrath.

So I think we would both agree that getting a tattoo that says "I love Satan" would be bad. Shaving our heads so we look like a Neo-Nazi would be bad. Taking advantage of foreigners is bad.

But what about those other things--like rare steaks? We wouldn't fill a glass with cow blood and drink it because we know that's disgusting. Why will we eat mostly raw meat with cow blood in it without thinking it's disgusting? Maybe our consciences are so dulled by the world around us that we don't even know what is disgusting anymore. Maybe we like the taste of rare steak, or like feeling cool because of our tattoos, or like our short hair, or like cross dressing, or like our sexual desires, or whatever, so much that we don't want to hear what God says He likes and abhors. God's call was never to be a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, but between those who are His people and those who are not His people. Jesus did not wipe out that call but came to ransom His people.

Anonymous said...

Hey Tex,

I don't see the same transition you see in verse 26. This whole chapter contains various laws - some of which are reiterations of obvious moral absolutes (ie. v. 3, 4, 11, 12) and others, in context, are laws of custom specific to the Jews. I'm not saying it's easy to always distinguish these, but you always have to read the Old Testament in context with the New. I think if you look at Acts 10 and put yourself in Peter's shoes as he looks, horrified, at the vision of unclean animals he is told to kill and eat, you can see how radically different the New Covenant is from the Old. So as far as the rare steaks go, I don't think God looks at that as being something that we have hardened our hearts to. He looks at it as something we have been made free to enjoy. I also don't think he looks at our garden or our clothes as a hardening of our hearts either (v. 19).

Anonymous said...

Also, have you seen a picture of me lately? Do you think I look like a Neo-Nazi? :)