Moderators John317 Posted July 10, 2007 Moderators Posted July 10, 2007 Originally Posted By: EDD 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 The vast majority of those who accept the historical-critical method don't even believe that Moses was the author of Leviticus. They generally view the Pentateuch (five books of Moses) as the product of the exile and postexile periods, meaning that in their view, Leviticus was not written until sometime after 600 BC. That is almost 1000 years after the Bible says the Hebrews left Egypt. Therefore, this method of Bible study recognizes very little genuine historical information in Leviticus. The historical-critical method does not accept the Bible as fully inspired and trustworthy. It maintains that some things recorded in the Bible are not reliable or accurate accounts of what actually happened. I took classes in the Bible while studying at public colleges and learned to study the Bible using the historical-critical method. It treats the Bible like any other text and does not teach people to trust it as God's Word. It does not accept the possibility of predictive prophecy but looks for an explanation of prophecy that is in harmony with the view of modern science. All of its original proponents believed in organic evolution. They utilize the theories borrowed from Darwinism to explain the origin and develpment of the Biblical texts and of the Hebrew religion. Later we can discuss this subject further as well as talk about the historical-grammatical method of Bible study, which is in harmony Jesus' own view of Scripture as well as with the Seventh-day Adventist' church's understanding of Scripture. In the meantime, should anyone be interested in learning more about this subject, one of the best introductions to the historical-critical view of the origin of the Pentateuch is found in the New Jerusalem Bible. See the Introduction to the Pentateuch, Section #2. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
David Koot Posted July 11, 2007 Author Posted July 11, 2007 Later we can discuss this subject further as well as talk about the historical-grammatical method of Bible study, Splendid, simply splendid. Although, when it comes to the Hebrew OT, for me, it is much less precise than the Greek NT. A lot of judgment calls, it seems, and calling for a huge amount of research in order to have some semblance of accuracy. Dave Quote
David Koot Posted July 12, 2007 Author Posted July 12, 2007 In this post, we survey the Lev. 11 occurrences of the English word "unclean," as it is rendered in the KJV: " Le 11:4 Camel meat is unclean. Le 11:5 The coney is unclean. Le 11:6 The hare is unclean. Le 11:7 The swine is unclean. Le 11:8 Don't eat the flesh or touch the carcass. They are unclean. Le 11:24 Whoever touches the carcass will be unclean until even. Le 11:25 Whoever carries any part of their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until even. Le 11:26 The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean. Le 11:27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even. Le 11:28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you. Le 11:29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, Le 11:31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even. Le 11:32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed. Le 11:33 And every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it. Le 11:34 Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water cometh shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean. Le 11:35 And every thing whereupon any part of their carcase falleth shall be unclean; whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down: for they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you. Le 11:36 Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean. Le 11:38 But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you. Le 11:39 And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die; he that toucheth the carcase thereof shall be unclean until the even. Le 11:40 And he that eateth of the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even. Le 11:43 ¶ Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. Le 11:47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten." This completes the survey of the word 'unclean' in the book of Leviticus. The next step will be to analyze the occurrences. In doing this, I submit the following: 1) The level of knowledge of the people at the time is immaterial to the question of the meaning of the word. In many ways, the people were primitive and degraded. Their knowledge could be expected to be limited or rudimentary. This, however, is very largely an assumption. Whatever the level of their knowledge, it is immaterial to the intrinsic significance of the distinction. In many cases, even the prophets who communicated messages from God did not understand what they were writing. In quite a number of cases, what was written was for our instruction, 'upon whom the ends of the world are come.' IOW we understand more today than the prophets themselves, and for that reason, we may be able to make sense of some things that the Bible writers themselves, with their more limited knowledge, did not comprehend. With respect to the present case, the reasons for classification of certain animals, and certain conditions, could be independent of time or place. If, for example, a condition was contagious or harmful, the people may or may not have understood that. Whether or not they did, our present knowledge of the human situation and basic principles can help us understand what perhaps some of them could not. 2) In a number of important instances, the Bible does not stand alone. For example, some of the great time prophecies incorporate events in history, as to which the student would need to study historical records to understand. Another example is frequent references in the Bible to things in nature, which an understanding of would be important to make sense of. Similarly, the Bible refers generally to various aspects of the human condition which a general knowledge would be important to understand. The Bible does not exist in a vacuum. 3) This student adheres to the historical-grammatical school of thought. This student rejects out of hand the historical-critical school of thought, as denying the inspiration of the Bible. 4) There are distinctions in the Hebrew words, which at times are different, but are translated by a similar English word. These distinctions can help us understand differences in intended meaning. This student submits that it would be reasonable to apply the foregoing four principles, always recognizing the supremacy of the written Word, in seeking to understand the meaning of the 'unclean' classification in the book of Leviticus. I would be interested in any thoughts as to the merits of these concepts before proceeding. Dave Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 28, 2007 Moderators Posted July 28, 2007 I would like to propose that Leviticus does use the word "unclean" to signify things that are unhealthy. For instance., Lev. 13: 3 describes a skin disease that causes the person to be pronounced "unclean." (NIV has "ceremonially unclean," but the Hebrew merely reads, "unclean.") Verse 44 says a man "is diseased and unclean." Verse 37 says that when the person is "healed" of a sore, he is to be "pronounced clean." It seems obvious to me that "clean" and "unclean" here are related to being healthy or unhealthy. In general, it appears that God uses "clean" and "unclean" to help the Hebrews learn spiritual lessons about the holiness of God and worship, but that these are also words that are closely connected to actual health or a lack thereof. In Lev. 11: 47, God tells Moses, "You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean [animals]" Why? Because "the clean" animals are edible [may be eaten] and the unclean are inedible [may not be eaten]. Why are some edible and others catagorized as inedible? Because some are good for human consumption and others are not good. If we take a cue from the way "clean" and "unclean" are used in Lev. 13, some are good because they tend towards good health and others are bad because they tend to lead to disease and ill-health. This in no way contradicts the issue of these animals making a person ceremonially unclean in the sense of his being unable to participate in the sanctuary services before he is cleansed after touching the dead bodies of these unclean animals. This helped impress on the Hebrews not only the fact that the animals are not to be eaten but also that all uncleanness is unacceptable to God because God is holy. Thus, "You must be holy, for I am holy." On Lev. 13, a chapter that deals with the subject of stopping the spread of disease, one well-known commentary, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's, says, "Whatever the origin or cause of the disease [of verses 47-59], the laws enacted by divine authority regarding it, while they pointed in the first instance to sanitary ends, were at the same time intended, by stimulating to carefulness against ceremonial defilement, to foster a spirit of religious fear and inward purity." I would like to hear anyone's view of this, whether he or she believes this post agrees with Scripture or not. It's intended to encourage reflection and discussion. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Members phkrause Posted July 28, 2007 Members Posted July 28, 2007 I've always thought that Leviticus and parts of Numbers not only dealt with clean and unclean things and sacrifices etc., but that it also taught health laws as well. pkrause Quote phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Moderators John317 Posted July 28, 2007 Moderators Posted July 28, 2007 I've always thought that Leviticus and parts of Numbers not only dealt with clean and unclean things and sacrifices etc., but that it also taught health laws as well. pkrause Yes, I did too, but recently some of those assumptions, particularly as they apply to Lev. 11, have been questioned, and therefore we are taking a fresh look at them, to see if our assumptions are indeed supported by the book of Levitucus itself. The question is, then, whether Leviticus 11 is only ceremonial or whether it is part of the moral law. If Lev. 11 is fundamentally about principles of health, then that would place it among the moral laws of God. On the other hand, if it is ceremonial, then Lev. 11 would not be binding on Christians the way the Ten Commandments are, that is, as a standard of Christian living. Thus far I have not yet completely made up my mind on the answer, and am open to other people's points of view on it. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Morning Glory Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 I have just read thru this thread and have found it to be very interesting, (not including the sarcastic remarks made, however, by one poster.) I have read thru Lev. in the past and have wondered some of the same things about what it all meant for me, now. I definitely think that there ARE a lot of health/sanitary issues being dealt with, such as how having a running sore, etc, would restrict ones activities within society and family. I also find it interesting that having sex makes one "unclean." AND I find it interesting that the man and woman are instructed to wash themselves, any clothing involved, and the bed linens afterwards. Good instruction, I say!! For me this means that God doesn't want His people going out in public or even in the family smelling like sex!! But, I must confess that I don't understand how that would make one unclean until "even". Unless being unclean in this instance would have something to do with something else.......what, exactly, does the word "unclean" mean in that text? If anyone has read the book "The Red Tent" (I don't recall the author's name at the moment, and don't know where my copy is since we have just moved) she goes into a lot of detail describing how women were "separated" for the proscribed 7 days of "uncleanness" each month. I don't know where she got her information or if is even correct.......but it does make a good point and perhaps there is some truth to it. The story is set in the days of Jacob at the time he was at his Uncle Laben's home. According to the author, when women got their periods, they were separated from the camp in a special tent where they were not required to do their regular manual labor, cooking, gathering, laundry, etc. No man was allowed in the tent, thus, women weren't "pesterd" to have sex when they were mensturating and perhaps having cramps and feeling crabby, as well. They used this time to rest, visit, and basically to recharge their batteries. The servants did their work for that week. She made a great part of the story about women being midwives which doens't pertain to this discussion, but does make the point that women had their babies in the "red tent" and stayed for the allotted time after having a boy or girl. Men could visit, however, not have "physical" access to the women. The new mom got to "know" her baby while being mentored by the other women in infant care, breast feeding, and all of that. In this context, being sequestered twice the time after delivering a girl seems to be a reward, and not a punishment!! Her time with "only" baby was longer than if she had had a boy.... just a thought. Again, please understand that I have no way of knowing if this author's story has any accuracy in this instance, or if it is just her imagination. It does, however make a great story, and did make me kinda wish that modern women were afforded that particular "luxury" as well. I am looking forward to reading more on this topic!! Morning Glory Quote Kindness is the oil that takes the friction out of life.
Guest charis Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 Just an FYI re: The Red Tent http://www.aish.com/societyWork/arts/The_Red_Tent.asp Quote: by by Rabbi J. Avram Rothman about the Anita Diament book: Anita Diamant is clear from the beginning that her work is fiction. So if she never claims the story to be true, what's the big deal about "The Red Tent"? We cannot accept that our forefathers, even in fiction, could be petty, could be murderers, could be willing to throw away the relationship they fought so hard for with the Almighty. Our tradition teaches that our forbearers were judged with extreme precision, because they were on such a high level. Even the "red tent" in the story, a place to which women were cast off during their menstruation cycle and men never ventured near, has no basis in Jewish belief or history. It says more for today's questions about equality of the sexes, than in biblical times, since the red tent never existed. Perhaps the author invented it to figuratively create a "women's club." But nevertheless, she created it. Quote
jasd Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 QR frame: Aren’t we, mebbe, being a bit too sublime? too precious? I mean, Lev 21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever [he be] of thy seed in their generations that hath [any] blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. v18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, (a wart? -- jasd) v19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, v20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or ... Well, one gets the picture... If one cannot accept the ‘other’ proscriptions enumerated in Leviticus, how does one justify currently parsing ‘clean and unclean’? It is making idols of shibboleths. Let’s remember that – Levi was the tithe unto the Lord (Jewish Encyclopedia). Quote
jasd Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 Re: the moontimes of ladies... Given the importance of cheese (what with all the sheep, goats, cows – of a pastoral community), it may prove somewhat interesting that in European history girls having their moontimes were forbidden near the cheese sheds. It is said that should these girls continue near the cheese sheds during their moontimes – the curing of the cheeses was disrupted and the cheeses spoiled. The reasoning advanced is that the cheese cultures of that time were killed by the irritability of those cheese tenders. Vibrations? ;-) It was probably something more numinous. 1 Sam 17:18 And carry these ten cheeses unto the captain of [their] thousand, and look how thy brethren fare, and take their pledge. Job 10:10 Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 29, 2007 Moderators Posted July 29, 2007 ...Lev 21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever [he be] of thy seed in their generations that hath [any] blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.v18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, (a wart? -- jasd) v19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, v20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or ... Well, one gets the picture... If one cannot accept the ?other? proscriptions enumerated in Leviticus, how does one justify currently parsing ?clean and unclean?? Glad you asked. This is exactly what we are going to try to find out on this thread. Would you care to help us study the subject and find answers? I invite you to come along. I believe Leviticus is the God-breathed Word of God, as 2 Tim. 3: 15-17 says, and as such I accept the "proscriptions enumerated" in the proper context and considering the times and conditions under which Moses wrote it. We have much to learn from a prayerful, careful study of Leviticus. It is among those books that God means for us to study in order to learn about Christ, as Jesus said in Luke 24: 33, "Everything which is written about me in the law of Moses...had to be fulfilled.' Then Christ opened their minds so that they might continue to understand the Scriptures..." Let's pray as we study that Jesus will also open our minds so we can understand these Scriptures. Without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, we will be liable to misunderstand it. "Now we have not received the spirit that belongs to the world but the Spirit that comes from God, that we may get an insight into the blessings God has graciously given us. These truths we are setting forth, not in words that man's wisdom teaches but in words that the Spirit teaches, in this way fitting spiritual words to spiritual truths. An unspiritual man does not accept the things that the Spirit of God teaches, for they are nonsense to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are appreciated by spiritual insight. But the spiritual man appreciates everything, and yet he himself is not really appreciated by anybody. For who has ever known the Lord's thoughts, so that he can instruct Him? But we now possess Christ's thoughts" (1 Cor. 2: 12-16). "We have the message of the prophets more certainly guaranteed. Please pay attention to this message as to a lamp that is shining in a dismal place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; because you recognize this truth above all else, that no prophecy in Scripture is to be interpreted by one's own mind, for no prophecy has ever yet originated in man's will, but men who were led by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1: 19-21). (The NT in the Language of the People, trans. by Charles B. Williams.) We may be sure that this applies as surely to Leviticus as to any other book in the Bible, including Leviticus 21: 17-20. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 29, 2007 Moderators Posted July 29, 2007 Re: the moontimes of ladies... Given the importance of cheese (what with all the sheep, goats, cows ? of a pastoral community), it may prove somewhat interesting that in European history girls having their moontimes were forbidden near the cheese sheds. It is said that should these girls continue near the cheese sheds during their moontimes ? the curing of the cheeses was disrupted and the cheeses spoiled. The reasoning advanced is that the cheese cultures of that time were killed by the irritability of those cheese tenders. Vibrations? ;-) It was probably something more numinous. 1 Sam 17:18 And carry these ten cheeses unto the captain of [their] thousand, and look how thy brethren fare, and take their pledge. Job 10:10 Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Exactly how is this related to our subject? We want to speak as directly as possible to the topic. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 29, 2007 Moderators Posted July 29, 2007 ...If anyone has read the book "The Red Tent" (I don't recall the author's name at the moment, and don't know where my copy is since we have just moved) she goes into a lot of detail describing how women were "separated" for the proscribed 7 days of "uncleanness" each month. I don't know where she got her information or if is even correct.......but it does make a good point and perhaps there is some truth to it. The story is set in the days of Jacob at the time he was at his Uncle Laben's home. According to the author, when women got their periods, they were separated from the camp in a special tent where they were not required to do their regular manual labor, cooking, gathering, laundry, etc. No man was allowed in the tent, thus, women weren't "pesterd" to have sex when they were mensturating and perhaps having cramps and feeling crabby, as well. They used this time to rest, visit, and basically to recharge their batteries. The servants did their work for that week. She made a great part of the story about women being midwives which doens't pertain to this discussion, but does make the point that women had their babies in the "red tent" and stayed for the allotted time after having a boy or girl. Men could visit, however, not have "physical" access to the women. The new mom got to "know" her baby while being mentored by the other women in infant care, breast feeding, and all of that. In this context, being sequestered twice the time after delivering a girl seems to be a reward, and not a punishment!! Her time with "only" baby was longer than if she had had a boy.... just a thought. Again, please understand that I have no way of knowing if this author's story has any accuracy in this instance, or if it is just her imagination. It does, however make a great story, and did make me kinda wish that modern women were afforded that particular "luxury" as well. I am looking forward to reading more on this topic!!Morning Glory Based on your description of the story, it sounds as if the book accurately reflects God's care for women and the laws He put in place to protect them. I can't really speak beyond that point as far as The Red Tent is concerned, since I haven't read it. People should realize that in the other nations of that time women were treated like cattle and had little protection. They also did much of the hard labor. Therefore God put in place laws that would relieve the woman's lot in life, giving her time to rest and recuperate after childbirth and providing time during her periods when she could not be touched physically by men. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 29, 2007 Moderators Posted July 29, 2007 ...Lev 21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever [he be] of thy seed in their generations that hath [any] blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.v18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, (a wart? -- jasd) v19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, v20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or ... Why? What was God's purpose? What was God teaching us by these things? Was God just being mean? Didn't He love people with flat noses or dwarfs or people with broken feet? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 29, 2007 Moderators Posted July 29, 2007 ...I have read thru Lev. in the past and have wondered some of the same things about what it all meant for me, now. I definitely think that there ARE a lot of health/sanitary issues being dealt with, such as how having a running sore, etc, would restrict ones activities within society and family. I also find it interesting that having sex makes one "unclean." AND I find it interesting that the man and woman are instructed to wash themselves, any clothing involved, and the bed linens afterwards. Good instruction, I say!! For me this means that God doesn't want His people going out in public or even in the family smelling like sex!! But, I must confess that I don't understand how that would make one unclean until "even". Unless being unclean in this instance would have something to do with something else.......what, exactly, does the word "unclean" mean in that text?...Morning Glory I'll have much more to say about these issues later, but for now, we might simply observe that the "unclean" in this context wasn't meant to imply that sex per se was sinful. It was normal sex between a husband and wife, and there was no discharge from the body (i.e., reproductive organs) due to disease. But God was teaching the people to distinguish between the common and the holy, between that which had to do with their emotional and sex life and that which had to do with the worship of God. (By contrast, the heathen combined their emotional and sex life together with their religion. God intended His people to be separate from the heathen nations around them.) The clean and unclean, both physical and moral, were associated with the holy and unholy. Throughout Leviticus God's primary purpose was to teach the lesson that His people were to be holy, because Yahweh is holy. (Lev. 11: 44, 45; 19: 2; 20: 7, 26.) Leviticus 11-15 is particularly to teach the importance of the difference between the clean and the unclean, the holy and the unholy. Why? In order not to defile the name or reputation of God and to keep the sanctuary morally and ceremonially clean. It was never to be forgotten that Yahweh Himself was in the camp. The deaths of Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10 were examples of what happened when people forgot the difference between the common and uncommon. Notice that this chapter significantly comes immediately before God's enumeration of the difference between the clean and unclean animals. A key passage summarizing all these things and showing the reason for their great importance is Lev. 20: 22-26. The many references in Leviticus to people being "unclean until even" simply meant that they would not be able to approach God in the sanctuary services and sacrifices until the following day, which for the Hebrews began with sundown. Again, this was to impress on them the absolute importance of both physical and moral cleanliness when approaching Yahweh in worship. "Our God is a consuming fire [to sin]." He still is. He has not changed. Please see Heb. 12: 29; 13: 8; 10: 26-31; 9: 28. This is one of the primarly lessons to be learned from a study of Leviticus. God is in the business in the sanctuary service today of separating us from our sins. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
jasd Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 >>I accept the "proscriptions enumerated" in the proper context and considering the times and conditions under which Moses wrote it.<< Sorta like Revelations, isn’t it? I mean, ‘this and that’ according to – who? Quote: Quote:jasdRe: the moontimes of ladies... >>Exactly how is this related to our subject? We want to speak as directly as possible to the topic.<< You ask, yet, immediately following, you post the entirety of a post addressing the issue – even as I addressed. >>Why? What was God's purpose? What was God teaching us by these things? Was God just being mean? Didn't He love people with flat noses or dwarfs or people with broken feet?<< Mebbe, He was simply allowing us room to maneuver around pet dogmas, doctrines, and Shibboleths..., sorta like 3-card Monty, eh? Quote
Morning Glory Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 John317, Thank you for this post. I have been thinking a lot about this subject over the past day. Especially the part about who could not approach the tabernacle. All of the tabernacle services, animals included, were a representation in some way of Christ. As such, all had to be PERFECT, as He was and is and will always be perfect. The animals for sacrifice were to be without blemish and of a certain age. The Levites who performed the sacrifices and the other temple rituals were also to be perfect. Jesus/ God had a LOT to say about the Israelites offering blemished ( prohibited ) animals for sacrifice during times their of rebellion and when he was on earth. These animals were representive of HIM and HIS sacrifice. An imperfect sacrifice will NEVER fulfill the requirement of the law; only a PERFECT sacrifice will EVER be acceptable. The people thumbed their noses at this requirement and found a way to "cull" the undesireable animals from their herd, instead. It is too bad that the doctors of the law didn't spend more time in teaching the people about the true meanings of these things instead of nit picking over words and inventing burdensome rules for the people to follow which had NOTHING to do with what these laws were all about in the first place!! I do not think that that meant in any way that God loved the folks who had deformities or genetic malfuntions or illnesses any less. But, in that condition (illness, injury, genetic mutation) they represented SIN; they could not CEREMONIALLY represent their God, therefore could not "approach" God. Just a thought sparked on memories of past study. Morning Glory Quote Kindness is the oil that takes the friction out of life.
Moderators John317 Posted July 29, 2007 Moderators Posted July 29, 2007 Quote: I do not think that that meant in any way that God loved the folks who had deformities or genetic malfuntions or illnesses any less. But, in that condition (illness, injury, genetic mutation) they represented SIN; they could not CEREMONIALLY represent their God, therefore could not "approach" God. I agree completely. It can seem to us, if we don't take into consideration what God was doing, as if God was being unloving and harsh to reject people with "defects" and diseases, but that is the furthest thing from the truth. It's important to remember the context of those things. If we forget the context, it would be like cutting out all of the pictures in the Medical Textbook and forgetting that they were part of a book on helping people get well. Some of those pictures could look pretty bad indeed outside the text. It's the same with some of God's actions in the OT. God has an emergency situation to deal with in the universe, the emergency brought on by sin and rebellion. That is the context. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 29, 2007 Moderators Posted July 29, 2007 >> Quote: John3: 17: Why? What was God's purpose? What was God teaching us by these things? Was God just being mean? Didn't He love people with flat noses or dwarfs or people with broken feet? Please explain. Could you give some examples from Leviticus? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
jasd Posted August 2, 2007 Posted August 2, 2007 Quote: Quote:jasd Mebbe, He was simply allowing us room to maneuver around pet dogmas, doctrines, and Shibboleths..., sorta like 3-card Monty, eh? >>Please explain. Could you give some examples from Leviticus?<< Déjà vu all over again. The above seems a familiar modus... 3-card Monty? In Leviticus? Thou jesteth, yes? ;-) My point is in the form of an interrogatory: has the .Org resurrected the proscriptions against the less-than-perfect or blemished? lets say, together with or in the same fashion as ‘clean’ vs ‘unclean’ has been resurrected notwithstanding the doctrines of faith and grace vs law as exposited by St Paul? The answer, I believe, is a resounding "NO!" Why then the selectivity? I don't have a problem with personal convictions. I do question those same convictions when they are translated to be requisite and salvational. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted August 2, 2007 Moderators Posted August 2, 2007 QR frame: Aren?t we, mebbe, being a bit too sublime? too precious? I mean, Lev 21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever [he be] of thy seed in their generations that hath [any] blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. v18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, (a wart? -- jasd) v19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, v20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or ... Well, one gets the picture... If one cannot accept the ?other? proscriptions enumerated in Leviticus, how does one justify currently parsing ?clean and unclean?? It is making idols of shibboleths. Let?s remember that ? Levi was the tithe unto the Lord (Jewish Encyclopedia). The whole point of this thread is that God had a good purpose in having Moses write the book of Levitcus just as he did in having Moses write the other books of the Torah and that we do well to read and study it in order understand and apply the lessons in those books that God has for us. It looks to me, however, that you are saying there's nothing in Leviticus, particularly, in the eleventh chapter, to make it worth studying. You've quoted Leviticus 21: 17-19. What do those verses say about God? What do they say about worship? I'd like to see your viewpoint. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 2, 2007 Moderators Posted August 2, 2007 Quote: Quote:jasd Mebbe, He was simply allowing us room to maneuver around pet dogmas, doctrines, and Shibboleths..., sorta like 3-card Monty, eh? >>Please explain. Could you give some examples from Leviticus? Déjà vu all over again. The above seems a familiar modus... Yes, when I don't have a good picture of what someone means, I ask them to explain and maybe give some examples. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 2, 2007 Moderators Posted August 2, 2007 Where do you think that I've done this in a way unsupported by the Bible? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
jasd Posted August 5, 2007 Posted August 5, 2007 >>The whole point of this thread is that God had a good purpose in having Moses write the book of Levitcus just as he did in having Moses write the other books of the Torah and that we do well to read and study it in order understand and apply the lessons in those books that God has for us.<< [ed.jasd] I agree with the premise on generalities – but, on particulars..., it’s hardly feasible, is it? I mean, take for instance my post on ‘moontimes’ and cheese: she whom you avow prophet is quite specific regards the consumption of cheese, yes? (did I manage to work that in, or what? >>It looks to me, however, that you are saying there's nothing in Leviticus, particularly, in the eleventh chapter, to make it worth studying.<< It is not the “studying” but the application that I take issue. >>You've quoted Leviticus 21: 17-19. What do those verses say about God? What do they say about worship? I'd like to see your viewpoint.<< My viewpoint is that there is the canon of OT literature and there is the NT. Sometimes, there is an expressed divergence – one from the other: sorta like, obsolete?. Quote
jasd Posted August 5, 2007 Posted August 5, 2007 Quote: Quote: Quote:jasd Mebbe, He was simply allowing us room to maneuver around pet dogmas, doctrines, and Shibboleths..., sorta like 3-card Monty, eh? Quote:John317 >>Please explain. Could you give some examples from Leviticus?<< Quote:jasd Déjà vu all over again. The above seems a familiar modus... >>Yes, when I don't have a good picture of what someone means, I ask them to explain and maybe give some examples.<< Sorry, it was so, well, Déjà vu. Anyway, there seems to be a bit of hustle and shuffle regards Leviticus and an implied obligation incumbent upon the Xtian of today. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.