Divine Law – Universal or Contextual?

I often turn to dramatized versions of the Bible when I can’t sleep. There’s something about hearing the text spoken aloud, with all the weight of ancient voices and traditions, that makes it come alive in a way that reading silently doesn’t. One night, as I drifted in and out of consciousness, I found myself listening to a passage about what to do if you have mold in your home. At first, it seemed like an odd and mundane topic for divine revelation, but then something clicked.

Not long ago, a friend of mine had a battle with mold in his house. He explained, in great detail, the painstaking process of eliminating it—cutting out infected sections, ensuring ventilation, and using specialized treatments to prevent its return. As I listened to the biblical passage, I was struck by how practical the instructions were, even by modern standards. The same core principles of mold abatement existed thousands of years ago, long before we understood fungi, spores, or the health risks associated with long-term exposure.

This got me thinking: If God gave laws to His people, He must have done so for a reason. Were these laws intended to be timeless, universal commands for all people in all places? Or were they meant to address the specific challenges faced by ancient Israel, given their environment, technology, and understanding of the world?

Far from being arbitrary or draconian, many Old Testament laws seem to have a logical, practical basis—especially when viewed through the lens of survival in the ancient Near East. Perhaps there is more to explore here. Let’s take a closer look at some of these laws, particularly the ones that seem perplexing, controversial, or largely ignored today.

A Quick Disclaimer

Before we dive in, I want to make one thing clear: this is a thought experiment. I am not trying to make a definitive theological statement or argue for a particular doctrine. Instead, I’m teasing out some logical connections to see where they lead. My goal is to better understand the Old Testament Law—not just as a set of ancient religious rules, but as something that might contain more depth than we typically hear in seminary lectures or Sunday sermons. If nothing else, I hope this exploration sparks further curiosity and conversation.

The Nature of Old Testament Laws

When people talk about “the Law” in the Old Testament, they often picture the Ten Commandments, a few dietary restrictions, and perhaps some obscure rules from Leviticus that seem confusing or outdated. But in reality, the Old Testament contains 613 mitzvot (commandments), scattered throughout the Torah—the first five books of the Bible. These laws cover everything from religious rituals to social justice, hygiene, property rights, and even agricultural practices.

Over the centuries, Jewish scholars have categorized these laws into three broad groups, which can help us understand their purpose and relevance today:

1. Moral Laws – Timeless Ethical Principles

Moral laws are those that reflect universal principles of right and wrong—things that most cultures, regardless of religious background, recognize as fundamental to justice and human dignity. The most famous examples are the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5), which prohibit actions like murder, theft, and bearing false witness. These laws are often seen as timeless because they speak to ethical behavior that transcends historical and cultural contexts.

Christians, in particular, often view these laws as still binding in some form, either because they are repeated in the New Testament (as Jesus does in Matthew 22:37-40) or because they align with natural law—the idea that moral truths are self-evident and universal.

2. Ceremonial Laws – Religious and Ritual Practices

Ceremonial laws govern Israel’s worship and religious identity. These include regulations about:

• Sacrifices and offerings (Leviticus 1-7)
• Dietary restrictions (Leviticus 11)
• Holy festivals and Sabbaths (Leviticus 23)
• Temple worship and priestly duties (Exodus 28-29)

Many of these laws were meant to distinguish Israel from surrounding nations and reinforce their covenant relationship with God. For example, the dietary laws (such as not eating pork or shellfish) were not just about health but also about maintaining a distinct cultural and religious identity.

Christians generally believe that ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ. The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes that animal sacrifices, ritual purity laws, and temple worship were shadows of something greater (Hebrews 10:1-4, Colossians 2:16-17). With Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice, many of these laws are no longer seen as binding in a direct sense.

3. Civil Laws – Practical Governance for Ancient Israel

Civil laws were designed to regulate Israelite society, covering everything from property disputes to public health and sanitation. These include:

• Mold abatement laws (Leviticus 14:33-53)
• Rules about restitution for theft or damage (Exodus 22)
• Regulations about fair treatment of workers and debtors (Deuteronomy 24)

These laws served a practical function in an ancient society that lacked modern legal systems, medicine, or sanitation infrastructure. While they might not apply directly today, they often contain principles that still have value. For example, the mold abatement laws, though framed in religious language, reflect an early understanding of hygiene that remains relevant.

Why Categorization Matters

Understanding these categories helps clarify whether a law applies today. A common mistake is treating all Old Testament laws as if they function the same way. But distinguishing between moral, ceremonial, and civil laws allows us to ask deeper questions:

• Is this law a timeless moral truth, or was it specific to Israel’s historical and cultural context?
• Is there a principle in this law that we can still apply today, even if we don’t follow it in the same way?

This framework provides a more nuanced approach to Old Testament law—not simply rejecting it as outdated, nor blindly applying it without context, but engaging with it thoughtfully.

Now that we have a foundation for understanding these laws, let’s examine a few specific examples that might seem perplexing, controversial, or even surprisingly relevant today.

Practicality in Ancient Law: A Look at Cleanliness Laws

One of the striking aspects of Old Testament law is its focus on cleanliness. While some of these laws may seem strange or overly rigid to modern readers, many reflect practical concerns about hygiene, disease prevention, and public health—especially in a world without antibiotics, refrigeration, or modern sanitation.

1. Mold Abatement (Leviticus 14:33-53) – Ancient Health Regulations

Mold is a problem as old as civilization itself. The passage in Leviticus 14 gives detailed instructions for dealing with mold and mildew in a home, including:

• Inspection by a priest to determine if the mold is spreading.
• Removing affected stones and scraping the walls clean.
• If mold returns, demolishing the entire house.

At first glance, this might seem like an arbitrary or superstitious law. But modern mold remediation follows many of the same principles: identifying the problem, removing contaminated materials, and ensuring that the environment is dry and well-ventilated to prevent recurrence.

Mold can cause serious health issues, including respiratory infections and allergic reactions. Without modern antifungal treatments, structural repairs, or HEPA filters, demolishing a mold-infested home may have been the safest course of action in ancient times.

This law suggests that the Israelites were not just concerned with ritual purity but also with practical disease prevention.

2. Menstruation Laws (Leviticus 15:19-33) – Hygiene in a Pre-Modern World

The laws regarding menstruation are among the most misunderstood in the Bible. These laws required that a menstruating woman be separated from communal spaces and that anything she touched (such as bedding or chairs) be considered “unclean” until washed.

At first glance, this can seem oppressive—a way of ostracizing women. But if we consider the reality of ancient hygiene, a different perspective emerges:

• There were no disposable sanitary products, meaning blood could easily spread in shared spaces.
• Water was scarce, particularly in desert regions, making frequent bathing impractical.
• Bloodborne diseases, though not understood scientifically, posed a health risk.

Rather than viewing these laws as punitive, they could be seen as early public health measures, allowing women time and space to manage their menstruation in a way that protected both them and their community.

3. Dietary Restrictions (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14) – Food Safety Before Germ Theory

Many of the dietary laws in the Old Testament are still followed in Jewish kosher practices today. Some of these laws may have had practical health benefits, particularly given the limited food safety methods available in the ancient world.

• Avoiding Pork: Pigs are scavengers and can carry trichinosis, a parasitic disease that can be fatal if pork is undercooked. In a time before thermometers and regulated cooking temperatures, avoiding pork might have been a simple way to prevent illness.
• Avoiding Shellfish: Many shellfish are filter feeders and can concentrate toxins and bacteria, leading to food poisoning. Without refrigeration, spoiled seafood could be lethal.
• Separating Dairy and Meat: This rule is less obviously practical. Some scholars suggest it may have been symbolic, rather than health-related. Others propose that in an age without refrigeration, mixing raw meat and dairy could increase the risk of bacterial contamination.

Cleanliness Laws: Superstition or Early Science?

To an ancient observer, these laws may have seemed like purely religious commands. But viewed through a modern lens, they align with many of today’s public health standards.

This raises an interesting question: Did the Israelites simply observe patterns and codify them into law, or was this a form of divine wisdom—a God-given blueprint for a healthier society, long before science confirmed its validity?

Regardless of the answer, these laws highlight a fundamental principle: many biblical commands had practical reasons beyond mere ritual. Even if some no longer apply today, understanding their context helps us appreciate their wisdom and purpose.

Next, we will explore another category of laws—those that seem more symbolic than practical, such as circumcision, and consider whether they, too, might have had hidden benefits.

Circumcision and Identity: Practicality or Symbolism?

Among the many Old Testament laws, circumcision stands out as both a deeply symbolic and a potentially practical practice. It was the physical sign of God’s covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:10-14), a permanent mark distinguishing the Israelites from other nations. But was circumcision primarily a spiritual identifier, or did it also serve a practical function in an ancient world lacking modern hygiene and medicine?

1. Health Benefits of Circumcision

Today, medical studies suggest that circumcision has some health advantages, including:

• Lower risk of infections – Removing the foreskin reduces the likelihood of bacterial buildup, which can lead to infections.
• Lower transmission of certain diseases – Studies indicate that circumcised men have a lower risk of transmitting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV.
• Reduced risk of penile cancer – Though rare, penile cancer is less common among circumcised men.
• Lower incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) – Circumcision reduces UTIs, particularly in infancy.

Interestingly, the Old Testament prescribes that circumcision should occur on the eighth day after birth (Genesis 17:12, Leviticus 12:3). Modern medicine confirms that by this time, a newborn’s vitamin K and prothrombin levels, which aid blood clotting, are at their peak. This makes it the safest time for a surgical procedure in an age before antiseptics and antibiotics.

So, was this command an example of divine insight into biology long before human science understood it? Or was it simply an observed tradition that happened to align with medical best practices?

2. Covenant or Cultural Marker?

Beyond its health benefits, circumcision served as a distinct mark of Israelite identity. But this raises an interesting paradox: if circumcision was a symbol of belonging, how was it an effective marker if it was not readily visible?

One possible answer is that we may be misunderstanding ancient social norms about nudity. In a time when communal bathing was common, and warriors, slaves, or captives might be stripped, circumcision could have been immediately recognizable. It also marked Israelites as separate from other nations, many of whom did not practice circumcision.

However, circumcision was not unique to Israel. Egyptians and other ancient cultures practiced it, often for hygiene rather than religious reasons. So, was circumcision an exclusive badge of divine identity, or was it an adaptation of a common practice given a new covenantal meaning?

3. Circumcision and Christianity

Unlike the Israelites, Christians do not have circumcision as a required marker. The New Testament explicitly states that circumcision is no longer necessary for God’s people:

• Paul argues that it is faith, not physical circumcision, that matters (Galatians 5:6, Romans 2:28-29).
• The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-29) concluded that Gentile converts did not need to be circumcised to follow Christ.

This raises a theological question: if circumcision was originally both practical and symbolic, has its practical purpose faded with modern hygiene? And if so, does its spiritual significance remain relevant—at least for Jewish people who still observe it?

4. Is Circumcision Still Necessary?

Today, circumcision remains a core ritual in Judaism, but for many, it is more about tradition and identity than practicality. Given advances in hygiene and medical care, one could argue that its original health benefits are no longer necessary for the same reasons they once were.

For non-Jews, circumcision is now largely a personal or cultural choice, often done for medical, aesthetic, or family reasons rather than religious obligation. Some debate its necessity altogether, with arguments for bodily autonomy challenging its continued use in non-religious contexts.

Final Thought: An Evolving Practice?

Circumcision is a fascinating case of an ancient law that straddles practical health benefits, religious identity, and cultural tradition. While its original function may have served both hygienic and covenantal purposes, its continued relevance depends largely on perspective.

For the ancient Israelites, it was a divine command with real-world advantages. For modern Jews, it remains a sacred rite of passage. For Christians, it has become spiritually obsolete.

But the bigger question remains: was circumcision primarily for health, for identity, or for something beyond human understanding? Perhaps, as with many biblical laws, the answer is a little of all three.

Sexual Ethics and Social Order: Practicality, Morality, or Both?

Few topics are as contentious and emotionally charged today as discussions about sexual ethics. While many modern debates focus on individual rights and identity, the Old Testament’s sexual laws seem more concerned with social stability and communal survival. Were these laws moral absolutes, universally binding across time and culture? Or were they practical regulations meant to serve the specific needs of ancient Israel? The answer, as with many biblical laws, may be more complex than we often assume.

1. Adultery: Trust, Paternity, and Social Stability

The prohibition against adultery is one of the clearest moral commands in both the Old and New Testaments. It is included in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:14) and repeatedly condemned throughout Scripture. The reasoning seems straightforward—betrayal of trust damages relationships.

But what if trust isn’t violated? Today, some couples enter into open marriages, where both partners consent to extramarital relationships. Would adultery, then, only be defined as breaking a specific agreement rather than engaging in extramarital sex itself?

In ancient times, adultery may have had another practical concern—paternity certainty. In a world without DNA tests, a man raising another man’s offspring unknowingly could be a major issue, both for inheritance rights and for ensuring that resources were going to one’s biological lineage. Some evolutionary psychologists suggest that many cultures developed strict sexual norms for women to ensure male certainty in fatherhood, while men historically had more sexual freedom. However, this is complicated by the existence of adoption in ancient cultures, where a man might willingly take in a child who was not biologically his—though this was a conscious decision, not an unwitting obligation.

This raises another question: If marriage is primarily about raising children, does faithfulness still hold the same weight when no children are involved? From a biblical standpoint, faithfulness is still emphasized as a core value, but from a purely practical angle, one could argue that it might serve a different function today than it did in the past.

2. Homosexuality in the Old Testament: Morality or Population Growth?

One of the most debated sexual laws in the Bible is the prohibition against homosexual acts in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which states that a man lying with another man is an abomination. Traditionally, this has been interpreted as a moral absolute, but could there have been a more practical rationale behind it?

Some possibilities:

• Population Growth: Ancient Israel was a small and often embattled nation. Given high mortality rates due to war, disease, and famine, reproduction was essential for survival. In a world without 8 billion people, ensuring population growth was a priority.
• Disease Prevention: In an era without antibiotics or knowledge of STDs, some sexual behaviors may have carried a higher risk of disease transmission, making prohibitions a protective measure.
• Cultural Distinction: Other ancient cultures, like Greece and Rome, normalized bisexuality. Israelite laws may have sought to differentiate their society from surrounding nations.

However, there is something curious about these laws—there is no recorded instance of them being enforced in the Bible. While other violations of the law (such as idolatry or adultery) led to executions in biblical narratives, there is no biblical record of anyone being punished for homosexuality. Was this a law strictly enforced, or was it more of a cultural boundary marker?

3. How Did Other Cultures View Homosexuality?

Comparing ancient Israel to its neighbors can provide context:

• The Greeks and Romans largely accepted bisexuality. Greek culture, especially, saw male-male relationships as a form of mentorship between older and younger men.
• Egyptian records do not show strong views on the issue, though some scholars suggest they leaned toward heterosexual norms.
• Israel, by contrast, took a strong stance against homosexual acts, suggesting that this was a deliberate cultural distinction rather than an unthinking adoption of regional norms.

4. The New Testament and Christian Sexual Ethics

Unlike some ceremonial laws that seem to fade away in the New Testament, the prohibition against homosexual acts appears to be reaffirmed in texts like Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. This has led many Christians to view it as a moral absolute rather than a time-bound cultural regulation.

However, this is highly debated among modern theologians. More liberal scholars argue that the context of these passages refers to exploitative relationships, such as pederasty or temple prostitution, rather than committed same-sex relationships. Others contend that Paul’s words reflect the same universal principle found in Leviticus—one that transcends time and culture.

From what I’ve read, I don’t think the Apostles were open to homosexuality in the way some modern theologians claim. But this still leaves an open question: Was this a command for all time, or was it rooted in the specific cultural and survival concerns of the ancient world?

5. Does “Be Fruitful and Multiply” Still Apply Today?

One common argument used against homosexuality is that God commanded Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). In a world that had only two humans, this command was vital. But does it still hold the same weight in a world with over 8 billion people?

If the purpose of sexual relationships is solely reproduction, then childless marriages or couples beyond childbearing age would also be outside the ideal. Yet, the Bible never condemns these relationships. This suggests that there is more to sexual ethics than merely ensuring population growth.

6. A Theological and Philosophical Puzzle

I don’t know exactly how this all works out theologically. Sexual ethics in the Bible are not as clear-cut as many claim—not because the text is unclear, but because people approach it with ideological commitments that shape their interpretations. Some see these laws as absolute moral truths, while others see them as culturally contingent regulations that served a purpose in their time.

Perhaps the deeper question we must ask is this: Were these laws given primarily for the well-being of ancient Israel, or do they reflect an unchanging divine design for human relationships? The answer to that question will shape how we view and apply these passages today.

7. More Questions

In Afghanistan, particularly in some conservative Muslim communities, there exists a distinct cultural understanding of same-sex sexual activity that differs from Western notions of homosexuality and bisexuality. Some Afghan men, particularly in rural areas, will engage in sexual activities with other men yet do not consider themselves homosexual or bisexual. Instead, they see intention as the defining factor—sex with their wives is for procreation, while sex with men is simply for pleasure and does not carry the same identity-based implications that it would in the West. However, if a man were unmarried and exclusively engaged in same-sex relations, he would be seen as truly homosexual, which carries social and religious stigma.

This perspective is not unique to Afghanistan; similar patterns have been documented in other strict patriarchal societies where heterosexual marriage is expected, but same-sex encounters occur in private spaces. This has long puzzled me—how sexual acts themselves can be categorized so differently based on the perceived intent behind them. It reminds me of the concept of Mormon “docking”, where individuals rationalize certain actions to align with religious boundaries while still engaging in technically forbidden behaviors. These cases challenge the idea that sexuality is always understood in the same way across cultures, raising deeper questions about the role of intent, identity, and societal norms in shaping sexual ethics.

When Practicality Meets Theology: The Challenge of Interpretation

One of the greatest challenges in understanding Old Testament law is determining which commands still apply today and why. Jesus and Paul both addressed this issue, but their approaches were nuanced. In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus declares that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. At the same time, Paul writes in Galatians 3:24-25 that the Law was a guardian until Christ came, implying that some aspects of it are no longer binding for Christians. This creates a tension—if Jesus upheld the Law, but Paul taught that believers are not under it in the same way, how do we discern what still applies?

For modern Christians, this is no small issue. We often hear that some Old Testament laws were for a specific time and place, while others reflect timeless moral truths. But how do we make that distinction? Some laws clearly have universal moral weight—such as prohibitions against murder or theft—while others, like dietary restrictions or purification rituals, seem culturally bound to ancient Israel. Then there are the laws that seem arbitrary, yet might have had practical value in their original context, like circumcision or prohibitions on mixing fabrics.

This raises an uncomfortable question: Do we only obey the laws that make sense to us? If we believe that all of God’s laws had practical purposes, then are we free to discard them once those practical concerns no longer exist? That seems like a slippery slope. At the same time, blindly following laws without context can lead to legalism—the very thing Jesus and Paul warned against.

As I’ve written in the past, the Christian ethic is, at its core, deceptively simple: Love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40). Sounds easy enough—until you meet your neighbor. Loving others is not a passive, feel-good exercise. It’s difficult, messy, and often requires making hard choices. What does love demand in a given situation? Is tough love the right approach, or is gentleness and patience the better path? Is love always unconditional, or are there times when setting firm boundaries is necessary? Does love mean affirmation or correction?

Maybe the answer is simpler than we make it. If the Law served as a guide until Christ, then perhaps we should lean into the Holy Spirit’s leading rather than relying solely on legal codes or human reasoning. But that, too, is easier said than done. The challenge remains: How do we balance faith, reason, and tradition in discerning how to live out God’s commands today?

Conclusion: A Case for Thoughtful Reflection

I have no idea how to even begin thinking about the Old Testament law against mixing textiles (Leviticus 19:19). Was it symbolic? Practical? Some kind of ancient fashion crime? If anyone has clues, let me know—because right now, it feels as mysterious as the One-Eyed Willy treasure map in The Goonies.

Looking at the Old Testament laws through the lens of practicality and theology, one thing becomes clear: God’s laws were never arbitrary. Whether addressing hygiene, social order, or moral conduct, these commands served a real purpose—both for the people of ancient Israel and, in some cases, for guiding moral principles today.

Too often, people assume that biblical law paints God as a cosmic killjoy, eager to impose burdensome restrictions just for the sake of control. But when we look closer, we see a different picture. Many of these laws protected Israel from disease, preserved social stability, and set them apart from surrounding nations. Even the seemingly strange or outdated laws had practical reasons—whether for survival, identity, or a deeper spiritual truth.

At the same time, not all of these laws were meant to be universal and eternal. Some, like the moral commands against murder and theft, are clearly timeless. Others, like ceremonial rituals or dietary restrictions, were deeply tied to the historical and cultural context of Israel’s covenant with God.

I hope this exploration has helped you see the complexity and wisdom of the Old Testament laws—not as random rules, but as carefully designed principles that served a purpose in their time and place. Whether we still follow them today or not, they reveal something about God’s concern for His people and the way He structured their lives for their well-being.

If this discussion has piqued your interest, you may enjoy my previous blog post from a more theological perspective, Is the Old Testament Law Applicable to Christians Today? Check it out here:

🔗 https://nlirien.wordpress.com/2024/04/19/is-the-old-testament-law-applicable-to-christians-today/

For Your Consideration

• What do you think?
• Are there Old Testament laws you’ve struggled to understand?
• Do you see them as purely religious, or do you think they had practical significance?
• What laws do we still follow?
• What principles can we learn even if a law is not directly applicable today?

Let’s continue the conversation.

Excerpt

Were Old Testament laws purely religious commands, or did they serve practical purposes for ancient Israel? From mold abatement to dietary restrictions, many laws had real-world benefits. But which were timeless, and which were cultural? Let’s explore the intersection of faith, reason, and biblical law.