I am not one who believes that the Bible was written by men.  Nor am I one who believes that it was penned at the dictation of God.  The translators of the NIV and other modern protestant translations of the Scriptures would come down more on the side of things of humans taking dictation from God.  Those who believe; 1. That the Bible is God’s literal word for all mankind and for all time, and 2. That each and every word is literally true in the literal sense of that word, all have a really big problem when presented with this kind of situation.  That is the problem presented in this question.  How obligated are we to obey the parts of scripture that seem out of date or excessively severe?

One of the common answers to Biblical questions such as the one mentioned here is to blame the translators.   The social and dietary laws in the Pentateuch are another example.  Jesus said that God gave us those laws because of our hard-heartedness and that answer seems to indicate that the audience that God is speaking to matters a lot.

Here is the short form of what I believe:

The Bible is the actual Word of God.  But it is not God’s word to all men of all stations and all times.  God spoke to people from the perspective of who they were, when they were, and what circumstances they lived in.  He has spoken to us human beings in different ways and at different times as we grew in our understanding of Himself, our understanding of ourselves, and our understanding of Creation.  Our job today is to look at the totality of the record of His interaction with us so that we can learn who He is and who we are.  That is both a more meaningful and a deeper task for anyone who studies the bible than we customarily look for. 

The Anglican understanding is that true and honest Bible interpretation requires three components: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.  That Scripture might be included in this triumvirate may be a bit surprising.  Scripture means the Bible, doesn’t it?  But let’s ask the question anyway.  What is scripture?  Actually this has been an issue throughout Church history.  The Baptists have pretty much solved the problem in their own way by settling on The King James Version with none of the Apocryphal books included.  As I understand it, the Churches of Christ have pretty much limited it to the New Testament.  Catholics call scripture the Bible as the Protestants understand it plus the Apocryphal books as well as the additions (in Greek) to other books of the Old Testament.  Anglicans have decided mostly along the lines of the Catholics, however the Apocryphal books have a special place; they are neither Old Testament, nor New Testament and are historical, but not Theological.

Tradition as something to be regarded when interpreting Biblical Truth, is a different criteria than many churches require.  As Anglicans, we recognize that scripture was written within a specific era of history.  How those writings were received and understood in their own day thereafter act to form how they are to be understood today.  How the Church has received the Word of God in the past is an important guide to how we are to understand it today.

Reason is the final tool to be used to understand the Word of God.  God gave mankind minds with which to grasp the Truth about the world in which we dwell as well as to understand what God has said throughout the thousands of years of His interaction with mankind.  As we discuss any passage of Scripture, it is always appropriate to ask the question, “is this reasonable?”  Without that question it is easy for us to get sidetracked or to lose ourselves in theories and suppositions so that we go wandering off into speculation.

With regard to the portion of scripture mentioned from Leviticus.  It seems reasonable to me that way back in the day, some 3000 years ago, the birth of a boy was an occasion for joy and that statute reflects that.  The birth of a girl was an occasion for mourning because the child that you brought into this world was going to be the cause of much pain and loss and that seems to call for a double measure of mourning.  Girls have always been costly, and that is at least partially because they are so precious and partly because they need defending and nurturing.  And finally, a boy child represented security for both mom and dad for the rest of their lives.  The birth of a girl meant sacrifices that would never be paid back.  The girl would end up costing her birth family every day until she was married and on that day they paid to the groom’s family the bride price.  If her existence blessed anybody she was a blessing to her husband’s family.  God knows that reality must be faced and mourned when it was called for.  We human beings need to rejoice when good things happen and mourn when bad things happen.  And frankly, in that day, the birth of a girl was a thing to be mourned.  God knows that and maybe that is why the rule is placed in Leviticus so that the Levites, the Priests, could help families deal with their fortunes, both good and ill during their lives.

I am reminded of a line from Fiddler on the Roof which revealed to me more than I first realized, when the audience is first introduced to Tevye and his family one of the most important pieces of information that we are given is that Tevye and his wife have five daughters.  Five.  And from then on heartbreak after heartbreak is revealed as the beloved daughters go their way to cleave to their husbands and form new families.

Now, perhaps as we read the bible, we can try to look at it with enlightened eyes.  Be wary that any time some very short portion of the scriptures are discussed oftentimes it is cut short intending to be deceptive.  That’s how proof-texting works.  We take one single verse that fits someone’s point of view and nothing contrary is allowed to be discussed.  And that works both ways, both to prove or to disprove any point.  Honest discussion of scripture allows for time and considered viewpoints as well as for the other things that scripture says that may be contrary or may just cause us to pause before becoming too dogmatic.