Leviticus: Arcane Rules or Important Truths for Today?

[David Koot]

Statements of opinion, and assumptions, are not only open to question, they should be questioned. Simply provide documentation in support or, if you have none, simply confirm that it is your opinion.

[there buster]

David, it's OK. We've seen the pony's one trick.

Obstruct and filibuster is easy. Boring, but keeps a person occupied.

I'm leaving you to your sandbox. You can build whatever castles you want, knock over everyone else's, and kick sand in the faces of whoever remain. Enjoy.

Everyone chant together; assumption, opinion, assumption, opinion. . .

[there buster]

The official scorer will please note that David Koot disagrees.

Now, for those who are interested, back to where we were before the speed bumps:

Quote:

Good point, Ed. I'm wondering if there is any significance for us in our personal walk with the Lord to make a difference between the clean and the unclean

Now, if Leviticus is really about 'holiness and access,' then we might derive a number of important principles which would have significant implications--far beyond our menus or actuarial tables.

Ancient temples were slaughterhouses, including the tabernacle, and the levitical laws did have significant sanitary benefits. But the worshipers weren't thinking about germs and illness when they went to the temple, unless they were making a thank offering for healing.

They were thinking about how to experience the power of God.

And that's the real focus of Leviticus. Health and sanitation were no doubt by-products of this, but that's not what the devout believer saw when reading Leviticus.

On the one hand they were impressed with the holiness of God-- nothing flawed, mixed, spotted, or blemished in any way could come near his dwelling place.

On the other hand God provided means for dealing with all those flaws and blemishes, of purifying the believer so that he could come to the opening and make his offering, and thus be right with God.

Now, it seems to me [yes, 'it seems to me' indicates an opinion, David, everybody knows that] that, given this understanding, there is more than a little to be derived for present day applicatio--going far beyond nutrition and sanitation. In fact, it can be quite profound.

[David Koot]

David, it's OK. We've seen the pony's one trick.

Obstruct and filibuster is easy. Boring, but keeps a person occupied.

I'm leaving you to your sandbox. You can build whatever castles you want, knock over everyone else's, and kick sand in the faces of whoever remain. Enjoy.

Everyone chant together; assumption, opinion, assumption, opinion. . .

That is an extremely inappropriate and personally demeaning response. I do ask for the assistance of a moderator. Or, since Gail as an adminstrator is being addressed here, am I to assume that administration is okaying this type of thing?

[there buster]

Me, too. I demand something-- I don't know what!

But I want it now!

Or maybe not.

[there buster]

The official scorer will please note that David Koot disagrees.

Now, for those who are interested, back to where we were before the speed bumps:

Quote:

Good point, Ed. I'm wondering if there is any significance for us in our personal walk with the Lord to make a difference between the clean and the unclean

Now, if Leviticus is really about 'holiness and access,' then we might derive a number of important principles which would have significant implications--far beyond our menus or actuarial tables.

Ancient temples were slaughterhouses, including the tabernacle, and the levitical laws did have significant sanitary benefits. But the worshipers weren't thinking about germs and illness when they went to the temple, unless they were making a thank offering for healing.

They were thinking about how to experience the power of God.

And that's the real focus of Leviticus. Health and sanitation were no doubt by-products of this, but that's not what the devout believer saw when reading Leviticus.

On the one hand they were impressed with the holiness of God-- nothing flawed, mixed, spotted, or blemished in any way could come near his dwelling place.

On the other hand God provided means for dealing with all those flaws and blemishes, of purifying the believer so that he could come to the opening and make his offering, and thus be right with God.

Now, it seems to me [yes, 'it seems to me' indicates an opinion, David, everybody knows that] that, given this understanding, there is more than a little to be derived for present day applicatio--going far beyond nutrition and sanitation. In fact, it can be quite profound.

[Woody]

OK you two. Do you know what happens to threads when there is a disagreement? They vanish into censorship heaven. It would be better to keep this topic for the rest of us who might like to read it. So ... you two solve your problems so this thread does not vanish. Step aside and solve your problems. Then come back and let us know the resolution that you two have come up with. WE would all love to see this good example of two Christians working it out.

Need any help? I am sure someone would be willing to act as a go between. I would volunteer ... but I am sure I am not wanted.

[there buster]

I keep trying to discuss Leviticus.

Now, for those who are interested, back to where we were before the speed bumps:

Quote:

Good point, Ed. I'm wondering if there is any significance for us in our personal walk with the Lord to make a difference between the clean and the unclean

Now, if Leviticus is really about 'holiness and access,' then we might derive a number of important principles which would have significant implications--far beyond our menus or actuarial tables.

Ancient temples were slaughterhouses, including the tabernacle, and the levitical laws did have significant sanitary benefits. But the worshipers weren't thinking about germs and illness when they went to the temple, unless they were making a thank offering for healing.

They were thinking about how to experience the power of God.

And that's the real focus of Leviticus. Health and sanitation were no doubt by-products of this, but that's not what the devout believer saw when reading Leviticus.

On the one hand they were impressed with the holiness of God-- nothing flawed, mixed, spotted, or blemished in any way could come near his dwelling place.

On the other hand God provided means for dealing with all those flaws and blemishes, of purifying the believer so that he could come to the opening and make his offering, and thus be right with God.

Now, it seems to me [yes, 'it seems to me' indicates an opinion, David, everybody knows that] that, given this understanding, there is more than a little to be derived for present day applicatio--going far beyond nutrition and sanitation. In fact, it can be quite profound.

[Gail]

Quote:

Now, it seems to me... that, given this understanding, there is more than a little to be derived for present day applicatio--going far beyond nutrition and sanitation. In fact, it can be quite profound.

YES!

Thank you, Ed- that is what I was getting at. Should we, or could we, in our reading of Leviticus, gain insight as to the holiness of God? Should it give us an idea of His majesty and/or effect changes in our [modern] hearts as a result?

[aldona]

Just saying my $0.02 worth here, this is not a direct reply to anybody in particular...

If the laws in Leviticus are about health, nutrition and sanitation, then help me to understand the following.

- Why is a mother unclean for twice as long after giving birth to a girl? Is there something about giving birth to a baby girl that makes the mom sick for twice as long? I am scouring my brain for anything from my medical school days or from my time working in ob/gyn to shed light on this, and am coming up with nothing.

These days we do not have a post-natal health check for moms of baby boys at 6 weeks and moms of baby girls at 12 weeks. Maybe my medical colleagues can help me out here if they are aware of any new information.

Or is it just a patriarchal society "rewarding" those who have produced males by halving their "unclean" time?

- Why are the following persons not allowed to come near the veil or approach the altar: someone who has a blemish, someone who is blind or lame, someone who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, someone who has an injured hand or foot, a hunchback, a dwarf, someone with a defect in his sight, someone with crushed testicles. (Lev. 21: 17-20). (At least I can understand excluding someone with an itching disease or scabs - these may have been contagious.)

Are people who are not in perfect physical condition somehow less spiritual or less worthy?

aldona

[David Koot]

I have been out working on my boat, and just got back. Am off to a Bible study, but will respond when I return later this evening. In brief, so far on this thread I have not gotten to the stage of serious analysis. So far, the bulk of it has been a survey of the occurrences of the word 'unclean.' Ch. 11 will be surveyed tonight. After the survey is completed, then I think it may prove interesting to begin analyzing the data. Also, KIM that while we see one word, 'unclean' appearing, different words, and different forms of the words, with different applications, may be present in the original. But all of this will be addressed in due course.

[John317]

Just saying my $0.02 worth here, this is not a direct reply to anybody in particular...

If the laws in Leviticus are about health, nutrition and sanitation, then help me to understand the following.

- Why is a mother unclean for twice as long after giving birth to a girl? Is there something about giving birth to a baby girl that makes the mom sick for twice as long? I am scouring my brain for anything from my medical school days or from my time working in ob/gyn to shed light on this, and am coming up with nothing.

These days we do not have a post-natal health check for moms of baby boys at 6 weeks and moms of baby girls at 12 weeks. Maybe my medical colleagues can help me out here if they are aware of any new information.

Levitucus is a book that contains a mix of moral, ceremonial, and civil laws.

No one knows for sure why a mother was "unclean" for twice as long after giving birth to a girl as she is after the birth of a baby boy. The reason for the difference will almost certainly not lie in anything that can be discovered by medical science.

I would like to propose as a partial reason something that people today in our modern society do not like to contemplate. It's that God made a difference beween male and female and He intended for society to keep a clear separation and distinction between them. He made the same kinds of distinction between the clean and unclean animals and even between one kind of material and another, wool and linen. God also asked us to be sure to make a difference between the common and the holy. "You must be holy," he commanded, "because I am holy." These are lessons to a great degree lost on modern western man.

[John317]

...

- Why are the following persons not allowed to come near the veil or approach the altar: someone who has a blemish, someone who is blind or lame, someone who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, someone who has an injured hand or foot, a hunchback, a dwarf, someone with a defect in his sight, someone with crushed testicles. (Lev. 21: 17-20). (At least I can understand excluding someone with an itching disease or scabs - these may have been contagious.)

Are people who are not in perfect physical condition somehow less spiritual or less worthy?aldona

God was teaching us that perfection is required to come into His presence. He was teaching us how essential it is to be holy if a man would live with God. In the same way, because they represented the perfect sacrifice of Christ, the sacrifices had to be without defect. The holiness of God is something we have lost almost all true consciousness of. Check out in Leviticus 10 an example of what happened to the sons of Aaron when they neglected to make a difference between the common and the uncommon, between the holy and the unholy. It is significant that shortly after the crimes that Moses' sons committed in the sanctuary, God instituted the day of Atonement (cf. Lev. 16: 1,2).

[there buster]

Thank you, aldona.

this ought to be interesting.

Since learning that chickens are not scavengers, and therefore clean, I've learned there are literally no limits to what one may find in this passage.

Quote:

Levitucus is a book that contains a mix of moral, ceremonial, and civil laws.

And whatever ad hoc categories are required to avoid the logical conclusion.

We can keep multiplying hypotheses in defiance of Occam's razor, or we can reckon that a book for the Levites, containing regulations concening approach to the tabernacle, is actually about ceremonial, cultic concerns.

Anyone who reads the Pentateuch can see that the entire Israelite camp is an extension of the tabernacle [don't bother, David, some things really are self-evident]. Israel moves when the tabernacle moves, and the ark leads the way, following the pillar of cloud/fire [spare us obstructionism, please]. When the cloud stops, the ark stops, the tabernacle is set up, and the tribes camp around the tabernacle in specified order. So the whole camp revolves around the tabernacle.

To be in the camp is to be, however remotely, near the tabernacle. So certain degrees of uncleanness force one completely out of the camp. As one approaches the Presence, more and more cermonial cleanliness is required.

Or maybe it's a hodge-podge of regulations for a whole range of miscellaneous purposes.

[David Koot]

to avoid the logical conclusion.

[David Koot]

I keep trying to discuss Leviticus.

Now, for those who are interested, back to where we were before the speed bumps

[David Koot]

- Why is a mother unclean for twice as long after giving birth to a girl? Is there something about giving birth to a baby girl that makes the mom sick for twice as long?

[David Koot]

When we understand the meaning that the Israelites actually got out of this text, find the principles behind that, and apply those principles to current circumstances, certainly.

First of all, that is something which one cannot do with accuracy today. Such an attempt would be speculative. A student cannot know with certainty what "the Israelites actually got out of this text." Nor is such an understanding necessary to determine the intent of a passage. It is not what the people understood at the time so much as what the Author intended, that counts. At times, God's penmen, the prophets themselves, did not understand what they were writing. It was for our generation, we are told in Scripture.

[David Koot]

Now you're proposing to go beyond what the text meant to the people at the time-- and you're going to read God's mind, and tell us what HE intended

[there buster]

Quote:

It has not been shown that the people of the time had no knowledge of how to avoid spreading disease, or of the importance of bathing and washing clothes, for example.

It has not been shown that they didn't understand rocket science or brain surgery, either.

Which shows the precise value of that objection.

[there buster]

Quote:

First of all, that is something which one cannot do with accuracy today. S

We can't understand what people understood, but we can figure out what God really meant.

The presumption in that is breathtaking.

[David Koot]

It has not been shown that they didn't understand rocket science or brain surgery, either.

Neither of which are pertinent to the issue at hand. Nor would the lack of knowledge of such disciplines be in any material to awareness of basic principles of health. It is neither here nor there.

[David Koot]

We can't understand what people understood, but we can figure out what God really meant.

The issue is evidentiary. We may not have credible evidence of the people's level of understanding, but in many cases we have been given evidence in the Bible, and other sources such as nature (God's second book), about what God meant.

[there buster]

Quote:

Or maybe it's a hodge-podge of regulations for a whole range of miscellaneous purposes.

Or maybe some of both, as well as other things.

It's not Leviticus it's Miscellaneous!

[David Koot]

It's not Leviticus it's Miscellaneous!

I believe there are some definite themes in the book. But I also think that the historicocritical approach is incorrect, and attempts to fit the book within a 'box' of man's devising. An in-depth study of the book would be most interesting, and that is what is being undertaken on this thread. We are fortunate to have a well-qualified Bible student who certainly appears to be meticulous as well as being well-read, who suggested this thread. That is John317. I think the study will be very informative, and am looking forward to it. But the historicocritical approach is only man's idea, and one which I believe to be incorrect.

Dave