~ This post is my commentary on a sarcastic and malicious open letter, by an unknown author, addressed to Dr. Laura Schlessinger. This letter has been on the internet for quite a few years now, but it just came to my attention. My comments are preceded by this symbol ~ and the rest of the text is from the letter itself.

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 I 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 him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

~ The same passage from Leviticus that forbids homosexual acts also forbids incest, adultery, bestiality, and idolatry. On what basis would anyone claim that the one act, condemned by Scripture, is moral, while the other acts, similarly condemned, are immoral? The fact that homosexual acts are now considered acceptable by secular society does not prove that the acts are moral. And even secular society formerly condemned these same acts.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

~ The Jews today do not perform animal sacrifices. The above assertion and question (a) ridicules the Jewish Faith. It is an anti-Semitic and malicious remark.

~ The Old Testament contains teachings on faith and morals, as well as disciplines. The former are unchanging truths; the latter are practices and rituals that can be changed or dispensed. Catholics believe that Jesus dispensed us from the Old Testament practices and rituals (animal sacrifices, circumcision, etc.), as the Council of Florence clearly taught. But Christians have their own rituals, recalling the sacrifice of Christ. Rituals are physical symbolic acts that express the belief in, and worship of, God.

b) 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?

~ The full passage of Exodus 21:1-11 is plainly about servants and indentured servitude, not slavery. Verse 2 says: “six years shall he serve you; in the seventh, he shall depart freely, without charge.” These Hebrew servants became free in the seventh year. Verse 7 then states: “If anyone sells his daughter to be a servant, she shall not depart as a female servant is accustomed to go out.” So the Hebrew servant was to be treated better than other indentured servants. The next verse then states that the person whom she serves “shall have no authority to sell her to a foreign people….” Then the next two verses talk about the marriage of the Hebrew daughter who is a servant. She might marry the son of her employer, and she would then be treated like his own daughter (Ex 21:9). Or if she marries someone else (Ex 21:10), her employer must pay her dowry. Then verse 11 asserts that if the employer refuses to abide by these rules, “she shall depart freely, without money.” It is therefore obvious that this passage does not approve of slavery, nor does it refer to selling a daughter into slavery.

c) 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 offense.

~ The verse in question is Lev 18:19, which forbids “approaching” a woman in menstruation. This phrasing is a discrete reference to sexual intercourse. In ancient times, having intercourse only during menstruation was a rudimentary form of contraception. So the verse forbids contraception, not any and all touching. Some conservative Jews today hold to the interpretation that the passage forbids all touching. But the passage itself does not explicitly state that.

~ As for the cited passage, Lev 15:19-24, this refers to a ritual, not to what is moral or immoral. The earlier portion of that same chapter talks about men, and the cited passage talks about women. The uncleanness described in that chapter is a function of the fallen state. And the rituals are meant to inculcate a sense of shame for the fallen state of men and women and a sense of modesty for all that concerns sexuality. But since Christ dispensed all the Old Testament rituals (disciplines), Christians are not required to follow those practices.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

~ The cited passage refers to indentured servitude, and it clearly states that every servant shall be freed in the Jubilee Year. It also allows that the indentured servant can free himself by paying money, in place of working. Indentured servitude is not slavery.

~ Indentured servitude was a necessary form in ancient times, as there were no social safety net programs, no corporations, few jobs, no minimum wage, no police, and little in the way of good medical care. A person who did not have an extended family with whom he could work and live would be in danger of death from robbers, sickness, and lack of food and water. So indentured servitude offered work in exchange for room and board and protection. It was a necessary form of subjection in that ancient society.

e) I have a neighbor 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?

~ The obligation to keep holy the Sabbath is part of the unchanging eternal moral law. However, the punishment for violating that moral law falls under discipline, not doctrine. Yet all the Old Testament disciplines have been dispensed by Christ. So we are not required to put someone to death, even if they commit a grave sin, such as refusing to keep holy the Sabbath, or blasphemy, or adultery.

~ Before the Jewish Faith, the world knew only pagan religions. These religions did not know that God is One; they believed in many gods. And they did not know that true worship must include doing good and avoiding evil. Their religion did not teach them good from evil to any substantial extent. So in order to establish the worship of the one true God, who is Goodness itself, and in order to incorporate a true and full morality into the lives of the Israelites and ultimately into the whole world, the penalties for doing evil had to be more severe than would be required in another set of circumstances. And all this was necessary to prepare the Israelites, so that the Messiah, who would offer salvation to all persons, could be born among a people who worshipped the one true God in truth and justice. Once the Messiah, Jesus Christ, arrived and taught us, and once he died for our salvation, the harsher penalties of the Old Testament law were no longer necessary.

f) 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?

~ The dietary laws of the Old Testament are discipline, and have been dispensed by Christ. But the moral teachings of the Old and New Testaments are still in force. Morality does not change. Practices can and do change. It is foolish to equate dietary rules with grave sexual sins.

~ The categorization of animals into clean and unclean is this: The clean animals are those that are suitable for eating, and the unclean animals are those that are not suitable for eating. This categorization would be, first of all, a necessity for survival, and secondly, a useful distinction to obtain the most suitable foods for a growing civilization. Ancient peoples noticed that consuming pork (likely to be not thoroughly cooked by ancient methods) often resulted in grave illness, and so pork became seen as an unclean food. And the same was true for other foods. Shellfish harvested from along shorelines, might easily be contaminated by bacteria from human waste. So shellfish would be categorized as unclean.

~ To this practical purpose, there is added an additional purpose: to function as a daily living parable for distinguishing between good and evil, between what is the will of God and what is contrary to the will of God. Since people generally eat food multiple times a day, this practice offers a daily opportunity to express one’s faith in God. But I stress that this discipline is a parable in action, a figure that is lived. What is important is not which animals/foods are categorized as clean or unclean, but rather a daily symbolic expression of the fundamental distinction in religion: what pleases God and what does not please God.

~ The ridicule of the Jewish faith in this anonymously-written letter is deplorable and anti-Semitic. The use of such remarks in order to try to undermine the authority of Sacred Scripture is a grave sin against God.

g) 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?

~ The rituals and rules of the Old Testament have been dispensed by Christ, but the moral law stands unchanged. The love of God and neighbor requires us to have respect for all persons and for their sincerely held religious beliefs and practices. Hatred of the Bible is hatred of God.

h) 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?

~ The rituals and rules of the Old Testament have been dispensed by Christ, but the moral law stands unchanged. The practice of cutting one’s hair a certain way, in Lev 19:27, was one aspect of a pagan ritual used to dedicate oneself to idols. So what was forbidden is not so much a hairstyle, but a common practice in of pagan religions. The same is true of the Old Testament rule against tattoos. The pagans would tattoo the names of their gods on their bodies. So the Jews were forbidden to obtain tattoos, as a way to shun the practices of pagan religions. These rules functioned to keep the Jewish faith separate from the religions of the surrounding peoples. The dietary laws also had the same additional purpose. Following the dietary laws prevented Jews from dispersing among the pagan peoples and thereby losing their Jewish identity.

i) 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?

~ The passage only forbids touching the dead carcass of a pig, which might be contaminated with disease. It does not specifically forbid leather made from pigskin. But again, the rituals and rules of the Old Testament have been dispensed by Christ, and yet the moral law stands unchanged.

j) 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)

~ The rituals and rules of the Old Testament have been dispensed by Christ, but the moral law stands unchanged. The prohibition against mixing two types of crops or two types of cloth were a living parable meant to teach the idea that the faithful must not live like the unbelievers. The Jews were a people set apart by God for a particular purpose, to prepare for the Messiah. So the parable teaches them to remember this special purpose, this higher calling. Even today, Christians should remember that we are a people set apart from sinful secular society; we are not to become so thoroughly mixed into the society of unbelievers that we lose our identity as the people of God.

~ The Old Testament death penalties are discipline, not doctrine. See my comments after (e) above. However, blasphemy against God is a serious sin; it is not at all in the same category as acting contrary to a ritual or discipline. Incest is also a grave sin. And it is a grave sin to ridicule and denigrate the sincere beliefs and practices of the Jewish Faith.

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

~ The letter is unsigned, and it is not clear who wrote it. What is clear is that the author of the letter is sinning gravely against God by ridiculing the Jewish Faith, the Bible, and the Christian Faith. These comments are malicious and constitute indirect blasphemy against God. Sincere disagreement with, or scholarly criticism of, another person’s religious beliefs or practices is legitimate. But the above quoted letter is nothing of the kind. It is an expression of hatred and contempt for Judaism and Christianity.

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.