Intro to Holiness Code

Before we open the Word of God together and consider His truth, let us ask the Lord to bless our time together. Our gracious Heavenly Father, once again, as we gather in Your name in this place, we ask that by Your Spirit You would come and give guidance, You would give enlightenment, You would help us to concentrate upon Your truth, that we might leave this place better servants of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

For it is in His name that we pray. Amen. If we were like many of our brothers and sisters in the world today, we might gather and be able to hear in the distance outside the walls of this room explosions and gunfire, for there is much violence taking place in our world.

When we think, for example, of the almost complete extinguishing of the Christian communities in Syria and Iraq, we know that there is great hatred of the Gospel amongst religious people against Muslims who consider it their religious duty to destroy the unbeliever.

And yet, we cannot hear gunfire outside of the walls of this building, and we are thankful for that. Does that mean that we are not in a place where there is warfare? Well, certainly not in the sense that many of our brothers and sisters experience, but I think most of us are well aware of the fact that open warfare has been proclaimed against the Christian faith and the Christian worldview within Western society.

The number of stories that we could raise in regards to the positive promotion of simple debauchery in Western culture today would take the entire morning to just outline the categories into which we would put these things.

But we know that there are very strong voices in our nation and in Western society as a whole who detest what we believe. They detest the idea that there is a God who can determine what is right and wrong, a God that says I am your Creator and therefore you will live in a certain way and that when we reject His ways, we do not experience an increase of happiness, joy, fulfillment, life.

Instead, we experience a diminishment of all of these things. The terminology that has become common in our day is we're talking about the difference between a culture of life and a culture of death. A culture that either affirms the importance of life and those mechanisms that God has given us to enhance life and to enjoy life and to increase our happiness within life, or a culture will celebrate death and will engage in those behaviors that will promote death and a diminishment of our experience of life.

That is an experience of death even while we live. For a number of decades now, we have seen with greater and greater clarity and greater and greater boldness the expression of detestation for Christian values by certain segments of our society.

And now today, that is becoming the majority voice in our land. People in the highest offices in our land now regularly express perspectives that are absolutely reprehensible in the sight of a holy God.

And they are promoting the idea of rejecting and in fact identifying as evil those things that God calls good. Now most of you who are regulars here are members know that on the last Lord's Day we completed a lengthy segment of study, a six year length of study.

At least as far as when I have the opportunity of preaching, we finished our study of the book of Hebrews. And so I have mentioned that I truly believe that it is appropriate and proper in the opportunities that I have of standing behind this pulpit to address the extremely important issue of what is called the holiness code.

The holiness code is a section of scripture found in the book of Leviticus. It's defined differently by different scholars. We are going to be looking at one specific section of the holiness code that is so often raised in discussions in our land in regards to God's law and God's moral law in regards to human sexuality.

That specifically is Leviticus 17 -21. Don't worry, we're not going there this morning. If you start turning there, we'll actually do a little introduction to Leviticus this evening and talking about the background of the book.

But I want to establish a few things beforehand. First of all, if you thought that there were tough sections of Hebrews, wait until we slog through this. I recognize that this is not the most sermonizable material, and so I must ask for your indulgence and I must establish some basis, hopefully this morning, for calling you to do the even harder work of working through this material, and hopefully we will be able to establish that this morning.

Specifically, I recognize that some of the topics that are raised in the book of Leviticus and in the holiness code itself are not easy to discuss in mixed company, are not easy to discuss in a public context because all realms of human sexuality are discussed there.

That's not the only thing that's discussed, but the Bible is honest. The Bible recognizes man in his state as a creature, and recognizes the necessity of laying out what God's will in these areas for man is.

And I know that it will not be all that easy to work through this, and it's not the kind of material that at the end of the sermon everyone is going, wow, that was wonderful, I really feel edified. So why do it?

Well, we could simply say we need to proclaim the whole counsel of God. We want to be able to say, as Paul said, that he's innocent of the blood of all men because he's proclaimed the whole counsel of God.

We could do that. But there's more to it than that. I am convinced that dealing with this particular section of Scripture is necessary to equip every single one of you in this congregation to present in a meaningful, sound, coherent and compelling fashion the reasons why we believe the things that we believe, especially as it has to do with human relationships to one another, the subject of marriage, the subject of human sexuality and the bounds that God has placed upon the expression of that sexuality.

And the reality is we live in a day where because of the connectedness of the vast majority of us, through the internet and through television and film, a tremendous amount of false information has been communicated to the people in our society regarding specifically the Bible's teaching on this issue.

And because of that, the world will attack very quickly any time we say, well, you know, God has said in the Bible, well, we know about that Bible. They will attack. Let me give you an example of this.

A number of years ago, late 1990s, you may recall a rather popular radio host. I don't know what happened to her, but you may recall the Dr. Laura show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger. And somewhere toward the end of somewhere around 1998, 1999, I don't know the exact date, an anonymous letter was published, written to Dr. Laura.

I'm going to read you the majority of it. There's one section I will skip over, just simply because, well, because. But here is the majority of this letter. Dear Dr. Laura, thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law.

Laura Schlesinger is a Jewish person. 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 is to be an abomination.

End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's law and how to follow them. Number one, Leviticus 25 .44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.

A friend of mine claims this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? Number two, 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? Number four, which means I skipped something. Number four, when I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord, Leviticus 1 .9.

The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? Number five, 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 or should I ask the police to do it? Number six, a friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Leviticus 11 .10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.

I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination? Number seven, Leviticus 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? Number eight, most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19 .27.

How should they die? Number nine, I know from Leviticus 11 .6 -8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? Number ten, my uncle has a farm.

He violates Leviticus 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 blast steam a lot.

Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Leviticus 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?

Leviticus 20 .14. I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Signed, your adoring fan. Now, listen to something like that and we hear the sarcasm. It's well written and.

We all know.

That that kind of rhetoric resonates with people in our society. My question for you all this morning is fairly straightforward. How would you respond? How many of us, upon hearing those words, were sitting there going, well, I know we read through Leviticus recently.

I sort of remember a couple of those things, but I don't remember a lot about the context. How many of us felt a confidence that if you could actually, let's say that was read to you by someone or those points were made to you by someone and you've just sat down on a plane and you're not just flying over to California, you're flying all the way to JFK.

You've got five hours.

And you're in the window seat. And so you don't.

Really have much of an excuse as to not pursuing this. You want to pursue this. This person seems to be interested, but how many of us will honestly sit here and say, I'd probably find a way to pretend sleep.

Maybe I'd explain that I have a condition that as soon as the engines rev up, I just go unconscious or I start babbling incoherently or something like that. We may want to, but do we feel confident that we could engage meaningfully?

Do you have a Bible with you? Can you open it up? Could you talk about the background of Leviticus? Could you talk about the Holiness Code? Could you talk about the laws for Israel versus the laws we understand it today?

And could you do so in a way that could actually enlighten the other person and maybe help them to understand why you believe the things you do. My goal, my hope is that when we finish this study, and it obviously will not take us nearly as long as Hebrews did, but when we finish this study, that you will feel confident and you will desire the opportunity.

Now, I read a little letter there, and you might say, Shabbat, who would actually encounter that? We're going to do something this morning. Thankfully, I warned Pastor Fry beforehand. I did not want to have to resuscitate him or anything like that.

We're going to do something this morning that's in 25 years. Yes, I've been here now for 25 years. We've never done on a Sunday morning. I just want to remind you, Pastor Fry, this is Pastor Fry's type of sermon illustration.

We all know this one, right? It's a favorite around here. We can never get rid of it. In fact, we might bury it with somebody. I don't know. This is the Pastor Fry type of illustration. My sermon illustration is to play you a sound file.

It's going to, Lord willing, come over the speakers. We tested this Wednesday night. It worked fine. That is no guarantee that what works Wednesday night will work Sunday morning. What do I want to play for you?

Well, that letter made the rounds. Some of you may recall that in the fall of 2014.

Years ago,.

A certain television program was airing called The West Wing. I never saw an entire episode of The West Wing, to be perfectly honest with you. But a lot of people did. And as an illustration of how absolutely committed to warfare upon the Word of God the media in our country is, I want to play for you a brief scene that takes place in the White House.

This episode aired, I believe, in September or October of 2000. The President has walked in and there is a woman in the room who is specifically intended to be Dr. Laura. And the President decides to shame this woman for what she believes.

We think this is a new thing. No, it's been going on a long time. So, listen to this encounter from The West Wing from September-October.

Of 2000.

She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath.

Exodus 35 2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town.

Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11 7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?

Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

There you go. I mean, I hope whoever wrote that letter got some royalties because it was obviously taken directly from it. But this was presented right there on the television screen and of course there was no response.

There was no context. It was a purposeful attack upon the idea that what is said in Leviticus 18 .22 or anywhere else in the Holiness Code could have any relevance today and by there being no response, the Dr. Laura figure is silent and embarrassed and humiliated in the face of all of these people.

What is being communicated? What is being communicated to the unbeliever? That these people really don't have a case. What's being communicated to the believer? Keep your mouth shut or this will happen to you.

That was happening 14 years ago. It happens with greater regularity now, does it not? And so we need to know. So where do we start this morning? Well, I think there's some foundations we need to lay first.

I think just simply going to, well, you know, it says in Leviticus 18 in our society today, you're talking to people who have no idea what Leviticus is in the first place. When you're talking to naturalistic materialists and secularists, you might want to define some of your phrases first.

You might want to define some of where you're coming from first and I would like to, with you, establish, first and foremost, I know amongst us we have a confession of faith. And you have the same confession of faith, well it's not this one, this is actually the official one, but the confession of faith, the 1689 Lenin Baptist Confession is in the back of your hymnal.

And I think most of you are aware that chapter 19 of that confession defines some things for us. So let's take a look at what it says. I want to make sure that we understand the foundation. Leviticus chapter 19, I'm sorry, Leviticus chapter 19.

Chapter 19, the law of God. Section 2, I'll start with that, there's only so much time. The same law that was first written in man's heart continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after Adam fell into sin and was given by God upon Mount Sinai in the form of ten commandments written in two tables.

The first four commandments constitute our duty towards God and the remaining six are duty to man. The ten are known as the moral law. Besides the moral law, section 3, besides the moral law, God also gave the people of Israel ceremonial laws which served as types of things to come.

They fell into two main groups. In one group were rights, partly related to worship, which prefigured Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and the blessings He procured for us. The other group contained a variety of instructions about moral duties.

By divine appointment all these ceremonial laws were to be observed, but only until they were abrogated in New Testament days by Jesus Christ, the true Messiah and only lawgiver who was empowered by the Father to terminate them.

To the people of Israel, God also gave sundry judicial laws which applied as long as they remained a nation. The principles of equity which appear in them are still valid, not because they are found in Moses' laws, but in virtue of their unchanging character.

Obedience to the moral law remains forever binding upon both justified persons and all others and that in respect to the actual content of the law and also the authority of God, the Creator who is its author.

In the gospel, Christ in no way cancels the necessity for this obedience. On the contrary, He greatly stresses our obligation to obey the moral law. Well, there's what the Confession says. You notice what it said right there at the end?

It talked about Jesus' view of the law. What was Jesus' view of the law? If someone were to ask you that question, how did Jesus view the law? Or, to ask it even more importantly for us, since we want to follow Him and we want to follow in His footsteps, how would Jesus have responded to the mockery of the Holiness Code from the West Wing?

What would His response have been to someone like that? I really doubt that the writers of that particular episode, the West Wing, were overly concerned about what Jesus' response would be, but you and I are concerned.

And I have found it useful, I will be honest, to express to the people of our day, even those people who show great disrespect to the Old Testament law, there is still a hesitation on the part of many not all, on the part of many, to openly express blasphemous words about Jesus.

And so, knowing what Jesus' view should be very, very important for us, and it can be also very practical, turn with me to Matthew chapter 5. We know the text very, very well. But I want to compare and contrast a couple of texts of Scripture as part of our thinking this morning.

In Matthew chapter 5, verse 17, Jesus says, do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot will pass in the law until all is accomplished.

Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Those are strong words. Not one jot or tittle, one iota, one dot, referring to the smallest elements of the Hebrew and Aramaic script, would pass away until all things are fulfilled.

God had given the law. Jesus over and over again referred to these as the words given by God to Moses. And we've seen in, for example, Matthew chapter 19, where he takes from Genesis chapter 2 and he reveals that these are God's very words.

He has the highest view, not only of the Scriptures, but of this law. And he says, and if you teach anyone, if you teach anyone to relax, to ignore one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same, you'll be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

That doesn't sound like a good thing. And so you have these high words. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. And a lot of people understand that term fulfill as simply a synonym for abolish. I have not come to abolish but to abolish.

It doesn't make any sense, obviously, to utilize that kind of language. But Jesus has a very, very high view of this thing called the law. So much so that he says, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

You look at the scribes and Pharisees, we all know, they abused the law. They didn't rightly understand the function of the law. In fact, as you go through the rest of the Sermon on the Mount here, you're going to discover that Jesus takes that law and he uses it as a means for going right into the heart and looking at the attitude of individuals.

We all recognize that the scribes and Pharisees, they would be very careful about the external application of doing this and doing that and Jesus' constant criticism of them was not the high view they had of the law, but the low view they had of the law.

Because you see, it wasn't, never does he say, oh, you shouldn't have been concerned about all that stuff. He never says that. Instead, he strongly berates them for not recognizing that the law speaks to the heart of man and the intentions of that heart and an individual's relationship to God.

And so you have very high words from Jesus about the law it will never be done away with and yet, turn with me over to Mark chapter 7. Mark chapter 7 verse 14. I want to compare and contrast that as we think about Jesus' view as a foundation for our examination of these issues.

Mark chapter 7 verse 14, and he called the people to him again and said to them, hear me all of you and understand, there is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him. But the things that come out of a person are what defile him.

And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him since it enters not his heart but his stomach and is expelled?

Thus he declared all foods clean. And he said what comes out of a person is what defiles him from within out of the heart of man come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

All these evil things come from within and they defile a person. Look at that list of sins. Look at that list of sins. Does it sound a little bit familiar? Does it look a little bit familiar? It would be pretty easy to go to God's moral law and identify every single one of these.

Sexual immorality just as a category is going to have illustration after illustration in the holiness code itself. But theft, murder, adultery, coveting, isn't that the Ten Commandments? Yeah. So what's his point?

External observation that has no internal reality is hypocrisy that God hates. You can outwardly conform yourself to a standard, but if it does not flow out of the heart, then all you've done is internalized all those sins.

That's why Jesus can say you've heard it said to you, but I say to you, because Jesus is focusing upon the heart. And a lot of people say, yeah, well, I just focus upon the heart. I don't have to worry about all that external stuff.

Isn't there a consistency between what's in the heart and how one behaves? It's supposed to be. It should be. That's how God made us. For from within, out of the heart of man, come all of these things.

That's where the issue is focused, and it's always been focused there. It's always been focused there. We think of the man after Moses is given the law about what you're supposed to do on the Sabbath day for the people of Israel.

His analysis is this is what you do. Guy goes out the next day. He's out there doing something that seems to be so mild and irrelevant. He's picking up sticks. And what happens to him? He's executed. And people today look at that and go, oh, what a horrible, wrathful God.

Oh, that's just terrible. They completely missed the point. That man had been a part of the congregation the day they said, we will obey. The words were still echoing in people's ears. And he goes out.

No big deal. I don't really care. What has he done? He has, by his actions, separated himself from his people while still staying amongst the people. And the day before he had said, I will obey. Including all of the judgment that comes with it.

It went to the inside. It went to the heart of that individual. And notice, though, something. Back in verse 19, thus he declared all foods clean. That's translated by most translations as a parenthetic statement parentheses put around it.

You could translate it as part of the sentence, but the point is that Jesus, by his teaching and by his authority as the Son of Man, declared all foods clean. Evidently, the writer of the letter that then was used in the West Wing had skipped this part because remember the shellfish thing?

We know that shellfish eating is abomination. But is it a lesser abomination than homosexuality? Can you answer that question for us? Well, it seems that from Jesus' perspective, Jesus knew about the law, about shellfish.

And yet, he declared all foods clean. It took a while for the disciples to get this. And so, the book of Acts, Peter's assignment to Tanner's home, which in and of itself was a little bit of an adventure for Peter because Tanners were not known as being overly you know, that's a lot of dead animal flesh around at Tanner's place.

And so, maybe Peter already thought he was sort of being a little bit on the liberal side there. And yet, he has to supernaturally drop a vision down on top of Peter, not just once not just twice, three times.

Arise Peter, kill and eat, just to get him to start thinking about the newness of the new covenants and what the gospel actually means. What's the point? There's one given point that we all understand but you're going to have to keep it in mind because you're going to have to encounter it over and over and over again.

There is a vast difference between approaching the Word of God as a believing individual who actually wants to know what it teaches. And hence, approaching it as being harmonious, as looking for how it fits together.

The vast difference between that and the approach of almost anybody else you're going to be talking to in the world today who will, as a given, set the text a contradiction to itself. And you will have to, in almost every single conversation you have, you will have to point out and challenge that mindset on the part of the person you're speaking to.

Because they're going to look at this and go, oh okay, so you all get to pick and choose. You know, you all just get to, you can be inconsistent and if you like a part, you believe that, you don't like a part.

No, actually there is an entire field of study. The Bible is a collection of books written by 40 plus authors over a period of 1500 years in two primary languages and a tertiary language, a third language, a few chapters.

Representing all sorts of different kinds of literature. And anybody who thinks you can just throw that kind of collection of material together and then simplistically start reading at the beginning and apply the same rule to every kind of literature, to every type of literature, to every time, without looking at what it's saying, without looking at what the context was, without looking at what the author is saying, you would never do that to any other piece of literature in existence amongst mankind.

You wouldn't do it. You would recognize the foolishness of that. And yet, that's what you demand of the Bible? Why don't you allow the Bible to be what the Bible is? Now, you may not even know what the Bible is, but let me explain to you what it is.

And let me ask you, if you're going to make the argument you did, if you're going to read that letter, if you're going to make the arguments about the Holiness Code, have you actually read it? Do you know how Leviticus functions?

What it was written for? Do you understand what the law is versus the prophets? Versus the writings? Do you know how Jesus interacted with these things? And we all know that the vast majority of situations, the person you're talking to is not going to know those things.

Unfortunately, it's probably because they've been talking to a lot of other Christians that didn't know those things either. But the vast chasm that exists between approaching the Bible honestly and approaching it dishonestly will come up in every one of these conversations.

Every one of them. And I can't give you a cookie-cutter way of getting around this. There is no cookie-cutter way of doing it. Obviously, the way that I will approach it is going to be dependent upon where I am, how much time I've got, how this person approached me, that I approached them.

I'm trying to gauge their level of knowledge, their level of, you know, is this going to be a type of person that can be challenged directly or am I going to have to be you know, the kit gloves, real careful type situation here?

There's going to be a lot of things that go into that and you as a different kind of person than I am is going to approach this in a different way than I will. But you cannot avoid having to lay out for whoever you're talking to the fact that they are approaching this text with a certain presupposition just as you are.

And their presupposition is I can just simply chop this text up into pieces and I don't have to worry about being consistent or harmonized. And you need to be able to communicate to someone that is disrespectful toward the authors of this text.

You would not want anyone to do that to you. Why do you do it to them? If you wrote a book today, would you want someone a hundred years from now, five hundred years from now to treat your writings in the way that you treat the writings of the Bible?

Or would you allow would you ask that they be fair? That they hear you in your own context? And that the context of all of Scripture be allowed to speak? That is something you will have to communicate.

What this text shows us is we have on the one hand if anyone teaches anyone to loosen the least of these commandments, least of the kingdom of heaven, I declare all foods clean. Now the only way that you can possibly put those words in the mouth of Jesus is to start recognizing that you can't approach the subject of God's law in a simplistic way.

You have to allow for the fact that the distinctions that have been made by Christians down through the centuries in regards to ceremonial law, judicial law in regards to the people of Israel, moral law, are valid distinctions that we must take into consideration or Jesus himself becomes contradictory in his own teaching.

But we as followers of Christ, if he makes this kind of distinction, if he can declare all foods clean while saying the law of God abides, then we must follow him and we must then struggle with the issues that every generation of Christians have struggled with when it comes to looking at the law of God in Scripture.

Now let me mention something else. There will be disagreements, especially when we get into the specifics of certain texts in Leviticus as to how we as believers are to map these things out and understand the distinction between moral and ceremonial, moral and judicial.

What was specifically for the people of Israel? Our confession says there are certain kinds of laws that were only relevant to the nation of Israel and that nation no longer exists. So, how do you figure out which one's which?

Is it just a lottery thing? Do you just flip a coin? Or can we come up with a meaningful mechanism? Well, if you read Reformed writers, if you read men who know and love the Word of God, guess what? I've got a shocking revelation for you.

You will find disagreement, especially on this issue. And in fact, brethren, some of you are going to disagree with me in this room. We're going to be dealing with some challenging issues, and you may take a slightly different understanding on certain things.

I'm not going to call you out from the pulpit about it. But at the same time, sometimes, sometimes the reason we disagree, we're really honest with ourselves because we haven't really thought much about the subject in the first place.