Categories
Bible Study Numbers

Numbers | Chapter 2

This is where text would be if I had written anything for chapter 2.

Categories
Bible Study Numbers

Numbers | Chapter 1

In Numbers chapter 1, we follow the same format that has persisted in the end of Exodus through Leviticus, which is Yahweh speaking to Moses at Mt. Sinai. The instructions are for a census to be taken. But the goal isn’t just to know how many folks are around these days, the count is specifically targeting males twenty years and older, those who can go to war. It sets the stage for what is to come, God to deliver the land He promised Abraham through his descendants. The lead man from each tribe of Israel is responsible to do the count and return the number to Moses. 

Notice here that the list of the tribes of Israel are not a full count of the sons of Israel. In place of Joseph, we see his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, treated in the same way Israel’s actual sons are (a promise kept from back in Genesis 48). Also, the Levites are not listed as, we will see later, they won’t be allocated any specific land and are not part of the “army” that is being counted. So the count is still 12, but it includes no Joseph and no Levi, but the addition of Joseph’s sons Manasseh and Ephraim. 

All in all, everyone gets counted and there’s over 600,000 fellas. That’s a large group of people, and a sure sign that Yahweh has been faithful in His other promise to Abraham, that his offspring would be of a great number. 

The chapter ends with the instructions about the tribe of Levi. One, they are not counted, because they will not be expected to fight. Instead, they are responsible for the protection and moving of the tabernacle and all the items associated with it. This includes surrounding it while the camp is settled and packing it up and hauling it when the camp is moving. Why is this necessary? The instructions tell them it is to keep folks from coming to death and avoiding Yahweh’s wrath upon the congregation. It’s a matter of creating a hospitable environment for a holy God to live among them. The Levites protection of the tabernacle ensures that the holiness of God’s dwelling among them isn’t intentionally or unintentionally violated by someone, thereby resulting in both a personal and corporate impact. 

The people obey, a solid step of faithfulness and an affirmation that they intend to cooperate with this execution of God’s promise. 

Categories
Bible Study Numbers

Numbers | Introduction

The English title of this book, Numbers, is translated from the Greek title “Arithmoi”, meaning, you know, numbers (we obviously see this same root word in our modern “arithmetic”.) This is certainly titled as such in reference to the multiple censuses that occur, including at the very beginning of the book. The Hebrew title, “bemidbar”, however, is a better broad title as it translates from the fifth word in the book meaning “in the wilderness”. This narrative focuses on God’s people over the 40 years travelling in the wilderness between Mt. Sinai, through the Wilderness of Paran to Kadesh, and ultimately to the promised land of Canaan (or in this case, just outside in the plains of Moab). 

To that point, like the books that come before and after it, Numbers is the continued story of God keeping his promises to Abraham, through His people and His faithfulness. As could likely be expected, however, all of this also reveals the tendency of man to rebel against God’s good intention for them, curse the means through which His mercy comes, and react with skepticism and disbelief even after being personal witness to God’s faithfulness many, many times at this point. Every point of this journey is met with some form of protest, a subsequent combination of judgment and mercy (restoration), and additional provision of law to meet the needs of new situations that are arising for His people. 

Numbers moves the reminders of God’s holiness and provision of the laws that reflect both it and the role of Israel as God’s people (to be holy as He is holy and to act as the kingdom of priests) from Leviticus and puts them into a live environment, transitioning knowledge to opportunity for faith and obedience. Like many of the New Testament writers did, we should see ourselves in this transition as well and likely subject to the same fickle and non-sensical reactions. Also like Leviticus, there are periods of additional law-giving and descriptions of rituals. We need to be careful not to move too quickly past these things as they are not only a central means through which the Israelites deal with living with the holy presence of YHWH in their midst, but are also the means through which they remain faithful to His character in their day to day lives. For us, who live on the other side of the sacrifice of Jesus, it is the undergirding reasons for these laws, less so than the exact expression of them, that continues to influence our lives and relationship with YHWH. 

Categories
Bible Study Leviticus

Leviticus | Chapter 17

Chapter 17 is in many ways a connecting and transitional chapter. Stemming back from the golden calf incident in Exodus 32, the remainder of Exodus through Leviticus 16 has primarily focused on the work of the priests (interacting with the people) in their protection against idolatry and understanding of God’s holiness, especially how to live and act among His presence among them. Aaron kicked this off as the person/priest primarily responsible for leading the people to the ill-fated golden calf. With that priest-channel of idolatry mostly straightened out, the next section transitions to defining the holiness (and paths to idolatry) of the average individual.

The first warning against improper action is against trying to avoid the sacrificial system altogether by killing animals outside of the sanctuary. This brings with it a number of problems. For starters, there has been a lot of effort made to sanctify (make holy) the various implements involved in the sacrifices (the altar, the priest, the clothes of the priest, etc.) Obviously, if you’re trying to administer sacrifices by yourself out in the wilderness, you are not the right person, are not clean, do not have access to any of the sanctified items, and are not in the proper area. Further, this prohibition makes it pretty easy to spot someone who is actually trying to sacrifice to another god (in this case some sort of goat-demon) vs. someone who is making an offering to Yahweh. “Whoring” after these other gods (think offering one’s body and service to them) seems to be something the Israelites are prone to. Having such clear and specific instruction on what an offering to Yahweh looks like prohibits someone from trying to claim they were offering sacrifices in the wilderness to Yahweh when they were actually offering to another god.

The penalty for violating this is that the violator shall be “…cut off from among his people”. Basically, this offense is akin to murder and will be punished by God directly. The lack of immediate punishment by the community that surrounds the violator may make it seem like they are getting off easy. However, the threat of being cut off by the hand of God would hover over a guy like an incurable and imminent disease whose effects may come upon him at any time without warning. The sense of paranoia that would exist in such a circumstance (and the fact that on the other side of that is the specific attention of a holy God on you) would make this consequence very difficult to bear.

Of course, there is a solution here. If you kill an animal in the wilderness, bring it in. The priest will make sure the blood is out, burn the fat, and give the meat back to you. No worries. Note that this law is not restricted to followers of Yahweh, even those who are just travelling through or are guests in the land must bring their meet to the tabernacle to be offered as a peace offering to Yahweh. There are certain things God will just not permit within His presence and fealty to other gods is one of them.

In v.10 we get a sense of how this whole sacrificial system works and why there is such a focus on blood. God declares that the blood of an animal is its life and it has been given to the people as a means of atonement. When sin entered the world, death came with it. The sacrificing of the animal allowed for that punishment to be covered, “atoned” for, with the animal acting as a substitute for the guilty person/people. The overall respect for blood (draining of it, not eating it, etc.) is centered around a respect for life itself (this is not foreign so far in the Torah, we saw a similar description in Genesis 9).

Two more distinctions are made as the chapter ends. If you’re hunting and you kill a beast, you must drain all of its blood and cover the blood with the dirt. It’s possible there’s a distinction here between wild game and those that are available for sacrifice. The strictest interpretation would be that if it’s an animal that is able to be sacrificed (ox, sheep, bull, etc.) then it must always be brought to the tabernacle to be dealt with, even if they are just going to drain the blood, burn the fat, and return the meat. However, if it’s not one of those and it is hunted and killed in the wild, then it doesn’t have to be taken to the priest, you just have to make sure to drain all of the blood before you eat it. The less strict interpretation is that anything hunted in the wild can be dealt with in the wild. I lean towards the more strict interpretation because the primary concern here is protecting against idol sacrifice in the wild so it would make the most sense that any animal killed that was allowed to be sacrificed to Yahweh would have to be taken to the tabernacle to be dealt with as an affirmation it wasn’t being whored-out to a goat-demon.

Finally, it’s unclean to eat an animal that dies on its own or is killed by another animal. If you do so, you have to bathe yourself and clean your clothes and wait the day and then you’ll be clean. If you refuse to do that, you remain unclean and bear the risk of walking around in an unclean state when a holy God lives among you. As attested in prior chapters, this is not a sensible risk to take.

Categories
Bible Study Leviticus

Leviticus | Chapter 16

Chapter 16 opens with a reference that brings us back to chapter 10, when Aaron’s two sons died after making an unauthorized sacrifice to God. Now, to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, God provides instructions to protect the high priest. But this is not the only point of the chapter. As we’ve seen outlined in chapters 11-15, there are a number of situations and behaviors that make the people unclean. Although this isn’t always a moral issue, it does keep them from being able to be in God’s presence in the sanctuary. Thus, beyond the daily sacrifices, there still needs to be a way to purify the sanctuary, the tent, the priests and the people from the pollutions of the unclean worshipers so that the presence of God may remain among them.

First, we deal with the priests. As understood in previous discussions from Exodus and earlier in Leviticus, priests can’t just strut into God’s house, doing so in an unclean state is certain death (part of the reason priests who entered the Holy of Holies took to having a rope tied around their leg when they went in. That way, if they died in there, the body could be retrieved without someone else potentially dying in their trying to remove the body, which at that point would make them unclean). So, two things happen. First, there is a purification sacrifice (a young bull) and a burnt offering (a ram). Also, he must wash, then change his clothes to a full linen get up. In his normal attire, the High Priest looks like a king. When entering the presence of God, he is dressed as a servant, nothing flashy about him.

The bull is sacrificed and its blood is used to purify a number of different areas. Coals from the sacrificial altar are mixed with incense and the smoke fills the holy of holies, covering the top of the ark of covenant where God’s presence dwells, and ultimately protecting the priest from inadvertently seeing the presence and dying. The blood is also touched onto the “mercy seat” on both the east side and the front. Some is also put onto the altar and to the tent itself.

But it’s not just the priests uncleanness that’s the problem, the people are also the problem. So from among the people two goats are taken for a sin (purification) offering and a ram for a burnt offering. With the two goats, lots are cast as one will be given to the Lord and one will be sent to Azazel (more on that in a minute). Generally what would happen is that the two goats would be placed in front of the high priest, one to the right and one to the left. Two lots were put into a pot or an urn, one with the words “to the Lord” on it and the other with the words “to Azazel” on it. The high priest would take the lots out and place one on each of the goats’ heads. Then everyone would be able to see which one goes to the Lord and which one goes to Azazel (as compared to the priests cleanness ceremony which happens in private).

The goat who belongs to the Lord would be sacrificed and its blood would be used in the same way the blood of young bull was for the priest sacrifice, sprinkled on the mercy seat, the tent, the altar, etc. The purpose is explicit, “… to make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.”

Next, the priest approaches the live goat. He places both his hands on the goat’s head and confesses over it all of the sins of the people. In essence, the sins are being called out and transferred onto this scapegoat. The goat is then sent away into the wilderness with the help of someone whose gig it is to make sure the goat and all of its newly acquired uncleanness makes its way out of the camp, where apparently Azazel awaits.

The symbolism of the act is relatively clear, the sins of the people are transferred to the goat and removed from the camp so as to no longer able to pollute the people or the camp (and put them at risk of broaching the laws of mixing the holy and the unclean). The phrase the ESV renders as “…into the wilderness…” is literally rendered as “a land of cutting off”. There are various thoughts on what this means, then. It could just be a place where the goat ends up that they are physically cut off from returning to the camp (like a deep valley or something). Or, it could mean that it is a place where the life of the goat is cut off (later Jewish literature would record the fella whose job it was to handle these types of things as basically chasing the goat until it fell backwards off of a cliff).

This leads to the next interesting item, the description that the goat is for Azazel. With the initial comparison of one goat being for the Lord and one being for Azazel, many have been led to believe that Azazel is some kind of demon who is being pacified with this sinful goat. This isn’t surprising in those times as the wilderness was often considered the place where demons could be hanging out. Further, Azazel is the name of a demon in later Jewish literature (Enoch 8:1 and 9:6). Functionally, we could see this as the sins being returned back to their author. However, it would seem difficult to not see this as a gift to a demon, something that would certainly have no place in a ceremony that is entirely predicated on the service to and holiness of Yahweh. (Also, Leviticus 17:7 seems pretty clear that there can be no sacrifice, certainly including an offering, to any other spiritual being).

A couple of alternative explanations do not treat Azazel as a proper noun but instead as rare Hebrew nouns meaning either “complete destruction” or “rocky precipice”. These combine with our earlier explanation of the goat being “cut off” and ultimately point to the fate of the goat being one of destruction or, at least, isolation, without the implication that there is a specific being waiting for it or to whom it belongs.  I’m partial to either one of these explanations, not because it avoids complications related to some kind of goat-hoarding desert demon, but because they make more logistical sense, aren’t in conflict with sacrificial restrictions in the next chapter, and are more consistent with the rest of the Biblical record (which makes no future reference to Azazel).  Regardless, the intention is clear, the sin is being eliminated from Israel.

After all of this is done, the priest re-enters the tent of meeting, takes off the linen, washes himself, puts his old priestly duds back on, then makes the burnt offering for both himself and the people. Then the various things that need done with the sacrificed animal are taken care of, and anyone who was part of burning up the extra outside the camp has to wash before they re-enter. The same thing must occur for the fella who leads the scapegoat out of the camp.

Most of this has focused on the work of the priest, but the people have a part as well (outside of just providing a sacrifice). They must set this day aside annually as a sabbath, meaning they shall rest and no one shall work. But they will also “afflict” themselves, a reference that elsewhere in Scripture has a connotation of self-reflection, repentance, fasting and prayer. The people are participants in this recognition of the mercy God is extending, not in earning it, but in receiving it and actively taking part in it. And in it, they shall be clean before the Lord from all of their sins (16:30).

Hebrews 9 spends much time making the connection of this annual day of atonement for Israel to the sacrifice that is ultimately made by Jesus. In God’s new agreement with his people, there is no longer a day of atonement because there is no need for one. With Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, our sins were purged once and for all. There is no risk of dying in God’s holy presence or being limited to only once a year. Jesus has cleared the path for every one to enter into the presence of God at any time. And even as we consider the scapegoat, we see Jesus taking all of our sins upon himself, eliminating the iniquity from our camp, from ourselves.

What can we then take from this in our day to day lives? Perhaps, combining the entire picture of chapters 11-16, let us not become numb to the extent of our need for mercy and a means for redemption, nor God’s perfect and willing provision of that very thing. Further, although we have not and cannot earn that mercy, let us not give up “afflicting” ourselves, spending time in prayer, repentance, fasting, and reflection; actively taking part in the mercy we have been given.

Categories
Bible Study Leviticus

Leviticus | Chapter 15

The parade of uncleanliness marches on into chapter 15 where we conclude with discharges from the human body, specifically those related to reproduction. There has been a bit of a progression here when it comes to the duration of uncleanliness. For example, in chapter 11 certain animals were permanently unclean, chapter 12 describes uncleanliness related to childbirth that could extend for up to 80 days. Then we have the variable uncleanliness for those with skin diseases. And that leads us here, uncleanliness related to reproduction, often having an impact of a wash and a single night’s wait.

Chapter 15 is set up as a chiasm, a pattern often used in Hebrew writing to show either an emphasis (the point in the middle) or to indicate a sense of balance. In this instance, it is both. The section is talking about A) Long-term male discharge and sacrificial cleansing, B) Short-term male discharge and intercourse, B) Short-term female discharge and intercourse, A) Long-term female discharge and sacrificial cleansing. Although obviously the genders have different plumbing and the discharges are expressed in different ways. they are complementary (balance) and meet ultimately meet together intercourse (the B section, a point of emphasis).

For long-term male discharges, we’re talking some kind of emission from the penis that is unhealthy and possibly obstructing. Although not exclusive to it, many commentators believe it could cover diseases like gonorrhea. Regardless, the point is clear, if there’s a persistent flow of something that isn’t urine and isn’t supposed to be going on that long, that’s what we’re talking about. In reaction, the man is unclean. And not only is the man unclean, but basically anything that he touches or that comes into contact with undercarriage is unclean. If another person touches the man, is spit on by him, uses his saddle, sits on his chair, etc., must wash and then he’ll be clean until evening. The persistent-discharge fella obviously isn’t clean until the discharge stops. Once it does, he waits 7 days, washes his clothes and himself, and then he’s clean. On the eighth day, he does the sacrifice necessary to cleanse the temple and the sin offering and he’s good to go.

Next we have short-term male discharges.  This is your run of the mill ejaculation, regardless of whether it is part of the deed or not. Everyone and thing that is involved with the semen (clothes, ladies, etc.) needs washed and then is clean in the evening. This is a good time to note that this emission of semen isn’t sinful, it’s just something that causes someone to not be in a pure state so to approach a holy God so things have to be done to restore that. Notice there are no sacrifices here, just a wash and wait. Also, note that the impact of this kind of situation is that those who were involved in worship or who were fighting in God’s holy wars were not permitted to have sex.

Then there’s short-term female discharges. Here we’re talking about the woman’s menstrual cycle. The period of time for the uncleanness is longer here, practically because the cycle lasts longer then how long the emission of semen takes. And like the man’s short term discharge, there is no sacrifice necessary at the conclusion of the waiting time, just a wash and then they are clean. However, if a man has sex with a woman and her period arrives during the act, he is unclean for the 7 days and then has a wash and is clean. (Having sex while knowing she’s on her period is forbidden elsewhere in Leviticus so this has to be talking about an unforeseen circumstance). Like men, being unclean in this way is not an indication of sinfulness, cleanliness indicates boundaries of action. As long as those rules are followed (i.e., not going to the tabernacle when unclean), there is no guilt.

In our modern times, the length of time and the restriction of not touching anyone (lest you make them unclean) for ladies seems particularly restrictive. However, it is at least worth considering that would only impact ladies who were 1.) old enough to have a period but not old enough to have stopped 2.) women who weren’t pregnant (who don’t have a period), and 3.) ladies who are not nursing a baby (periods take longer to return when a woman is breastfeeding). For a society that saw children as a blessing, pregnancy and nursing were a constant condition. Thus, the greatest impact of these was upon unmarried younger ladies.

The long-term discharge refers to menstruation that happens perpetually or longer than the normal cycle. As long as it lasts, the woman is unclean as is anything she touches. This is what is going on with the woman who had bleeding for 12 years in Mark 5. Like the persistent emissions from a man, the woman here is unclean until the bleeding stops, at which time she does the purification and sin offerings and all is well. In general, the purification sacrifices seem to be necessary when the uncleanness lasts longer than a week.

What’s the purpose of these? Well, we can recognize that the holy should not mix with the unclean, it brings death. For the nation to know what is unclean, God had to tell them. Even seemingly normal actions, although not sinful, still make someone not not clean so they are being warned lest they inadvertently make the situation much worse by transgressing the purity of God and the tabernacle while unclean.

But that doesn’t answer the question of why these situations make them unclean to begin with. It is worth noting that many cultures of that time saw these same things as restricting people in some way in whatever their cultic practice is. Some have proposed it is for hygienic reasons, which does make sense in the long-term discharge situations. In effect it ends up as a bit of a quarantine, limiting interaction between people and potentially materials that have been exposed to the uncleanness or disease. However, that isn’t entirely satisfactory, or at least not consistent, as the reaction to short-term discharges for either men or women. Others have proposed symbolic explanations.

Most satisfactory, at least in my mind, is a thought that is consistent with how we have been thinking about clean/unclean in the other chapters, which are evaluations or comparisons to things that are “normal” or as God intended. In this case, “life fluids” that leave the body make that person to not be in their complete state, So, at least for a time, they are unclean. But just as the short-term issues are natural, so are the resolutions (wash and wait). Where the longer term issues are abnormal, they are associated with waiting, washing, and sacrificing to purify the tabernacle due to the presence of that uncleanliness in the camp.

Categories
Bible Study Leviticus

Leviticus | Chapter 14

Chapter 14 continues the discussion on dealing with “skin diseases”, although as noted in the previous chapter, our concept of this shouldn’t be restricted by what we know modern-day as leprosy as this chapter will eventually get to how to deal with houses that have these same afflictions. Whatever we’re dealing with, it can express itself in people and can be present in a house in such a way that makes the dwelling itself unclean.

Since we know from chapter 13 that an unclean person ends up outside of the community, the question is how those same folks can be brought back in once the disease is no longer present. One of the key things to note here is that, as the priests get involved, they are not curing diseases.  Their job is to to be arbiter of recognizing clean or unclean and make sure that, when that transition occurs, the proper things are done.

If a person who was unclean and outside the camp find that they no longer have the disease, the priest is called to confirm that this is indeed the case. If it is, a series of things occurs. First, the birds. One bird is killed and its blood is mixed with fresh water in an pot. The second bird as well as the cleansed persons is sprinkled with this mix. What’s going on here? We’ll see similar things in chapter 16 with the rituals around the Day of Atonement, but broadly we’re seeing this person being identified with these two birds. The first one is dies (like the diseased person would have) and the second one is allowed to go free to live again, a resurrection. There’s also a sense of purification (with the blood of the sacrificed first bird), just like there is from the Atonement ceremony and the previous purification offering. Regardless, we’re seeing in the birds the mirrored reality of the person who is transitioning back into a “whole” member of society, rescued from the living death they were living in prior to the disease being cured.

After the bird stuff is done, the person has to shave their entire body and wash themselves, a proper cleansing before re-joining the holy people of God, a member of the community where Yahweh dwells. However, they’re not there yet. Although allowed to live in the camp, they can’t stay in their own tent yet. On the 8th day of their return (think of the similar timeframe for circumcision of a baby), the shaving and washing happens again and the person is now clean.

One more thing remains, though, and that getting back to doing what members of this community do, the sacrifices. What follows, then, is 4 sacrifices that we have already been introduced to earlier in the book: the burnt offering, the cereal offering, the purification offering, and the reparation offering. The first 3 make sense, you have the purification offering to cleanse the sanctuary, the burnt offering that which brings reconciliation with God and a re-commitment to a life in His service, and the cereal offering, which is essentially a pledge of allegiance. The only thing that perhaps seems out of place is the reparation offering. If you recall, the reparation offering was made when there was a trespass against a sacred item. This could be here, then, under the thought that the sickness may have come about due to an unintended misuse or contact with a holy item in an impure state. It can’t be that the presence of these diseases is exclusively linked to the presence of sin (as we’ll see later in this chapter, houses can get it and houses don’t sin). Alternatively, the reparation offering is one that compensates God for loss, so it could also be that this offering is made for all of the missed offerings while the person was outside of the camp.

The rest of the chapter looks ahead to when the Israelites will be given the land of Canaan and occupy constructed houses (instead of tents). When disease is found in a house, the priest will confirm it and then, like with garments and people, put a quarantine on the joint to see if after a week it has spread. If it hasn’t, all is well and the house is clean, but the sacrifices with the birds have to be done just like they were for the person. (Obviously, the offerings aren’t done since since buildings just have to be clean, not in communion with God). If it has spread, however, the stones that have the persistent disease are to be removed and discarded outside of the camp. They are then replaced with new stones and re-plastered. If disease shows up again in the house, once the priest confirms it it is declared unclean and the house is to be torn down and all materials distributed outside the camp.

Categories
Bible Study Leviticus

Leviticus | Chapter 13

Chapter 13 continues the instruction from Yahweh to Aaron and Moses around distinctions between clean and unclean, this time related to diseases. There are two basic sections to this chapter, the treatment of human skin diseases and the treatment of diseases that are on materials. Already, based upon that second section, we can recognize that any translation of “leprosy” here to represent the diseases in question falls far short of what is actually being described (the same term is what describes the problems with houses in the next chapter. Houses don’t get leprosy). Additionally, the symptoms of leprosy (or Hansen’s disease) do not correspond to the complaints actually laid out in this chapter, and in fact are directly opposite of what one would expect in some cases. Further, archaeological evidence has no evidence of anyone suffering from leprosy prior to the fifth century A.D.

So how should we understand the “skin disease” represented here? The root of the Greek word lepra as well as the underlying Hebrew word both have connotations of scaliness, so we can potentially think of the term to describe a variety of skin diseases that produce “flaky” skin (which explains the whiteness of the hair in some situations, representing not changes in hair color specifically but hair having the flakes of skin in it.

The broad notion of the evaluations in the chapter are consistent. A symptom presents itself then the priest takes a look to see whether what’s going on is superficial or pervasive. The priest can then either declare the person clean or unclean or, where the initial evaluation is inconclusive, have the person hang tight and away from folks for a week and then take another look to see if the proper diagnosis can be made (often by seeing whether the condition has spread or presented itself more emphatically since the initial inspection.) To be declared unclean, the “skin disease” has to be long and lasting, it had to be old, and it had to be deeper than the skin or unable to removed by washing. It also had to be something that impacted only part of the person, if it covered the whole body it did not defile them. With garments and clothes, the same is true, only part of the object is impacted.

There are multiple consequences of being unclean. For one, the diseased person must call out that they are unclean when among others and also rip their clothes and wear their hair down (in addition to covering their mustache). Why? The calling out makes sense for hygienic purposes. The other actions are indications of mourning, actions taken in other Biblical stories after a death. This level of mourning makes sense when combined with the other consequence, being removed from the camp. If you think of the Israelite camp as an egg, the Tabernacle would be the yolk (the holy place where Yahweh dwells), the white would be the main camp where people lived in relationship with Yahweh, and the egg shell would be outside of the camp. Those outside the camp are the non-Israelites and the unclean. Being unclean, they are not allowed to live in the camp lest they bring uncleanness into the people and into contact with the Tabernacle.

To live outside the camp was to live cut off from the Tabernacle, your friends and family, your normal life and the blessings of the covenant. The diseased person mourns because they experience a “living death” (Wenham 201). We see similarities to this in the experience of Adam and Eve in Eden in Genesis 3. Their disobedience ultimately meant the introduction of death, but it wasn’t immediate. What was immediate was being excluded from Eden and all of the blessings and benefits that came with it. Now, that part may make sense to us, Adam and Even chose to disobey. But what about these folk who came down with this skin disease? Aren’t they paying a heavy price for something that may not be a result of anything they have actually done? The simple answer is yes, it is indeed a heavy price.

This points us again back to the importance of purity and holiness. It was considered important to preserve purity of the tabernacle and holiness of the nation that individual discomfort was not allowed to jeopardize that. God’s presence depended on uncleanness being excluded from the camp. That is a harsh reality. It makes me think back to the consequences of Genesis 3, which seem so distant from us. But this introduction of disobedience, the choice to act against Yahweh’s intention for the world, created these distinctions. In Eden, no one ever lives outside the camp. But the introduction of sin into the world produces complications between a fallen society and humanity and a holy God. This earthly reality is not an eternal shackle, but it is difficult nonetheless.

Categories
Bible Study Leviticus

Leviticus | Chapter 12

A couple things that may help with this chapter. One of the key questions that comes to mind is, why do we see having children as a blessing all over in Scripture and yet it is a cause for uncleanness here? For starters, we can’t drop that context. Children are indeed a blessing and women are created equally in the image and likeness of God. Any assertion in how to interpret this section that diminishes either of those two things is unsatisfactory.  Also, note that the very act of intercourse, the nuts and bolts of creating this blessing, make both participants unclean. Broad point is, it’s irresponsible to try and render a moral judgment on what’s going on here without the context that surrounds it.

Further, we should be clear that being pregnant is not the issue in play here. Neither is the birth itself. It’s what is occurring after the birth, namely, the loss of blood. Similar to the lady’s monthly cycle, there’s a time after childbirth where there is continued bleeding. It’s heavier at first (and bright red because it’s fresh) and then continues to get both darker in color and lighter in volume over time until it ceases. This bleeding can last between 2-6 weeks (normally). As we’ll read later on, the lady is contagiously unclean for the week during her menstrual cycle. Anything that makes someone unclean beyond a week generally means they aren’t “contagious” in uncleanness after the week but it also means it will require a sacrifice to deal with (purification for the altar since there was uncleanness in the camp and then the burnt offering for forgiveness of sin.)

But why does this loss of blood make someone unclean? Perhaps it’s because loss of blood can lead to death, the antithesis of a “normal” life (consider our senses of “normal” or “whole/complete” from the last chapter). The women’s cycle is intended, in its normal state, to produce a child. In months where it doesn’t do that, it creates a state of uncleanness. Does God realize it’s a normal body function? Of course. Is it identified as a sin or something the women is doing incorrectly? Of course not. Regardless, it is something that makes her unclean and must be reacted to (not dissimilar to the unprovoked emissions from a fella during the night. He didn’t cause the thing, it just happened, and it still makes him unclean).

The question of why it’s a longer time when a girl is born vs. when a boy is born is a bit harder to nail down. Some believe that the circumcision of the boy has the impact of reducing the time of uncleanness for the mom. There is also some evidence to indicate that the time of bleeding of the mom tends to be longer when a girl is born then when a boy is born, although i wouldn’t lean on that without some studious inquiry on how repeatable and persistent that medical situation actually is.

Categories
Bible Study Leviticus

Leviticus | Chapter 11

Chapter 11 begins a new section in the book of Leviticus, one that deals with the various kinds of uncleanness and what is to be done to make someone clean again. This follows from the discussion Yahweh had with Aaron in chapter, which is that there are to be distinctions between what is common and what is holy, what is clean and what is unclean. How can they know the difference? The Lord will tell them.

It’s important to remember here that these instructions are coming within the context of a narrative, they aren’t just a legal recording of laws. Thus, the story frames the laws, not the other way around. If we take it out of that context it can easily look as though these instructions apply to all people at all times. However, they are directed to these specific people at this specific time. They are part of blueprint for what makes the nation of Israel holy. But as the New Testament makes clear, they are not applicable forever and never were for Gentiles. That said, they are not without value. We can still profit from knowing the intentions of these laws and what they were supposed to achieve, as well as why they were eliminated under the new covenant brought about by Jesus.

Chapter 11 specifically focuses on animals. They are further classified by land, water and flying creatures with a listing for each on those that are edible and those which are unclean (these are the same classifications of animals found from Genesis chapter 1). For land animals, where they have divided and cloven hoofs and chew the cud are clean and can be eaten. Any land animal where both of those things aren’t true is unclean. Just in case there was any confusion at this, the Lord provides a few examples of animals that only meet half the criteria with the reinforcement that they are unclean (the camel, the coney, the pig, etc.). By the way, many of the Hebrew terms for these animals are unknown, scholars are only firm on 40% of them. So, don’t be surprised to find variations in translations on the animal names.

Given the examples, by the way, it should be clear that the English phrase “chew the cud” doesn’t quite get at what is being described here. We think of cud chewing as chewing of the plant, storage in the stomach, regurgitation at the leisure of the beast, and then a more thorough mastication. Although this is true for cows, it’s not true for camels, who are described as those who chew the cud. Probably best to understand this as meaning animals who chew their food thoroughly.

Immediately, we want the questioned answered, what makes animals that don’t have both divided hoofs and cud-chewing tendencies unclean? We’ll get there but it may make sense to look at the other examples before trying to understand why these distinctions are what they are. For water creatures, only fish with fins and scales that live in the water can be eaten. If they live in the water and don’t have fins and scales, they are detestable (unclean).

For flying creatures, we have a list of birds that are unclean (they seem to be primarily birds of prey). Then we are told flying insects (that walk on all fours but have wings) are inedible but hopping insects are ok. Other animals that swarm (the Hebrew word for swarm has the connotation of creeping, crawling, wriggling) are also unclean (think lizards and mice the like).

Then we get a list of the pollution of these unclean creatures and how to become clean. For land animals, those who touch the carcass of an unclean animal will remain unclean until evening. If you carry the carcass, you have to wash your clothes, too (this is true for animals that are clean as well as we see in v. 39 and 40). Same thing with swarming creatures. If any animal dies and falls onto something, it’s unclean until evening as well (including wood, sacks, clothing, other work-type items). It also has to be placed in water (washed). However, if something unclean dies into a pot, it’s unclean for good and must be broken. If water was poured out from the pot while the unclean creature was in there dead, it is unclean (the assumption is that it cannot be eaten/drunk because you can never eat an unclean animal). However, wells, springs and cisterns are not unclean if the animal dies in there, just the animal and whoever has to fish it out of there. Unclean animals can fall on seeds, no worries. But if it’s watered and then the unclean beast deceases upon it, it’s unclean.

It’s worth noting that the uncleanness of certain animals is not as serious as some of the uncleanness that is to come in subsequent chapters. It also isn’t particularly unnatural to become unclean, sometimes you just have to move the carcass of an animal you were going to eat. Generally, uncleanness related to animals at the most constitute waiting until evening and washing yourself and perhaps your clothes.

The chapter ends with a context from God as to why He is making distinctions here. “For I am the Lord your God, and you must sanctify yourselves and be holy because I am holy. […] For I am the Lord your God who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God; you must therefore be holy, for I am holy.” If they are going to be His people, they must be holy , set apart, distinct from that which they are surrounded by. This is not just an issue of identity, it’s an issue of purpose. Remember, they are a “…kingdom of priests, a holy nation…”. They serve a mighty God who brought them out of Egypt and they must show themselves distinct in the world just like their God is distinct.

So broadly, these laws are relatively straightforward, there are only handful of criteria in determining what is clean vs. unclean and the solution to uncleanness related to animals is pretty consistent across situations. The rationale for the distinctions themselves, however, has been a subject of discussion since before Jesus’ time. Why can they eat cows and sheep but not camels or pigs? Why are mice, owls and eels unclean but grasshoppers not? There are four primary explanations for these distinctions and they are: arbitrary, cultic, hygienic, or symbolic.

Option 1 is that the laws are arbitrary, meaning there is no consistent reason across the distinctions, they are simply things that God has chosen because it His prerogative to do so. Perhaps we are drawn to this as it allows us to stop asking the question and move on, but is both potentially lazy and runs the risk of being unprofitable if we are missing potentially deeper distinctions. It’s a viable option, but it’s best we evaluate the other options before landing here.

Option 2 is that the laws are cultic, meaning they were chosen to make distinctions between Israel and the worship practices (and deities) of other cultures. This seems like a reasonable explanation, especially given the context provided at the end of the chapter that Israel was to be holy like God is holy. One would suppose that would mean they can’t be engaging with animals that were knowingly associated with the worship practices of other gods. This thought was also shared by Origen, the 2nd century church father, historian and theologian. He believed that certain animals were associated with certain demons (false gods whom accepted their affiliated animals as sacrifices) and notably, that, “…a wolf or a fox is never mentioned for a good purpose.” (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04164.htm, chapter 93). He has tied this to Egypt specifically, who have gods in the likeness of wolves, foxes, eagles, owls, etc.

However, although we can find situations where this option makes sense, it hardly explains it holistically. The Canaanites, for example, sacrificed the same range of animals as Israel did yet they are not declared unclean. Specifically, the bull was a primary pagan worship animal in both the Egyptian and Canaanite rituals but was allowed for sacrifice to Yahweh. So, unfortunately, although this option is appealing, it only makes sense in limited circumstances.

Option 3 is that the laws are hygienic distinctions, meaning that certain animals are declared unclean because they carry disease. The broad thought would be that the clean animals are safe to eat while pork can be a source of roundworms, the hare carries tularemia (bacteria that often can kill tons of rabbits of mice when it breaks out), and fish without fins and scales tend to burrow in the mud and become sources of dangerous bacteria. Similar risks exist for birds of prey who eat raw meat. You get the idea.

However, this option suffers from the same issue as option 2 in that it only makes sense for some of the prohibitions. We may recognize today that cows aren’t immune to disease, “mad cow” disease comes to mind. And in that day Arabs considered camel flesh as a luxury where Israel was to treat it as unclean. Further, it isn’t like Israel didn’t cook animal meat, they were to thoroughly drain blood and cook things to avoid consuming blood of animals anyway. In which case, some of the risks of the unclean animals causing sickness would be mitigated. Additionally, we don’t get any sense of this distinction in the text. If true, it would also be practical, and it seems like a reasonable thing to have called out that they needn’t worry about some of it if they just cook the meat.

Additionally, poisonous plants are not declared unclean. For their own protection, this seems like it would have been a worthy call out. Finally, if health was the underlying reason for the distinction, it makes little sense that Jesus would ultimately proclaim those same foods clean. If the nature of the pig is that it is filthy and carries disease, the proclamation to Peter to “kill and eat” the meat on the sheet in Acts 10 was a command to potentially poison himself. Overall, although it’s not impossible that there are instances of some unclean animals also being those who carry disease and thus creatures they shouldn’t eat anyway, the hygienic option remains unsatisfactory, just like the cultic option and for the same reasons.

Option 4 is that the distinctions are symbolic, meaning that the food laws point to the behavior and habits of clean animals as living illustrations on how Israel should behave while the unclean animals are illustrations of sinful men. This is a rather ancient explanation, going back to pre-Jesus Jewish writers and something that more folks are latching on to today as a possibility. As an example, this option might look at the animals that chew carefully that which they are to digest as being an example to humanity to carefully meditate on the words of God before taking them in. They may also look at the pig and recognize it wallowing itself in the mud (sin) and enjoying it, where as the sheep is a clean animal who reminded Israel that the Lord is their shepherd (many moons before Psalm would say it, we may add).

This is an interesting option but also one that is difficult to nail down. It is undeniable that Scripture is saturated in symbolism. Those who reject that do so in fear of the vast array of interpretations of such symbols under the thought that God would not produce something that can potentially be so misconstrued. Their rejection of symbolism as a whole is inappropriate but their caution is well heeded. In this instance, if one were trying to find examples to demonstrate each and every one of these laws as a symbol of human behavior, I’m certain you could find one to be satisfied with. But the fact that you could stretch a symbol to fit doesn’t mean it’s actually true. For example, I’m not sure the first reaction of the average fella to see a cow chewing the cud is to be reminded of patient and ponderous intake of the Lord’s word. Maybe it’s just me.

There is an Option 5 for consideration that is primarily symbolic but is far less subjective. The core distinction here is the notion of cleanness being akin to “purity” or even “normal”, something wholly of what it is intended to be. Humans are clean when they are as they should be, unstained by sin and untouched and unimpacted by anything that is unclean around them. Dead animals are unclean, regardless of any other categorization, because they are dead and are intended to be alive, that is their “normal” state.

We see this in other ways as well. Priests, for example, were to be free of physical deformity (to have a deformity was to not be wholly what it was intended to be). As we look at the laws of this chapter, we can see the distinctions in the categorizations of the animals, specifically in their mode of motion. They are separated into animals that fly in the air, those that walk on the land and those that swim in the seas. To swim in the seas, fish have fins and scales; to run on the land, animals have hoofs, to fly in the air the birds have two wings and another two for walking. The animals that conform to the “normal” use are clean. Those who do not are unclean. Fish without scales are unclean. Insects which are intended to fly but who instead walk are unclean. Animals who don’t have a distinct motion (the swarming creepers) are unclean. This starts to make sense but doesn’t speak to differences between, say, pigs and sheep. This may come from the nature of the community as farmers and their familiarity with sheep and cattle. To the extent those are the “normal” animals they interact with that they consider clean, animals that don’t match their behavior exist outside the boundaries of clean animals.

We also notice, in the land animals and air creatures specifically, a further distinction that is between those that are unclean, those who are clean, and those who can be sacrificed. This parallels the divisions in mankind between the unclean (those excluded from the camp), the clean (majority of Israelites), and the sacrificial (the priests). This symbolism is interesting in that we see man and beast coupled in a number of different ways being treated or thought of similarly (for example, the blessings in Genesis and the dedication of the first born in Exodus 13). If we think this symbolism of animals to humans makes sense, the restrictions on the birds of prey also makes sense. They are detestable because they eat things from which the blood has not been properly drained.

Grand narrative on option 5, then, is that the laws expressed an understanding of God’s holiness and pointed to Israel’s special status as the holy people of God. The division into the edible and inedible foods symbolized the distinction between Israel and everyone else (Gentiles). Israel, as God’s chosen, were in their “normal” state in right relationship with God so were pure, just like the examples in the clean/unclean animals. Every meal and every sacrifice reminded them of God’s restricted choice of this nation among all the others, of His grace towards them in this matter. It also reminded them of their responsibility to be a holy nation. In that, they were reminded that holiness was more than just what they ate, it was a way of life characterized by purity and integrity.

Is this a reasonable option? Arguments for it include its comprehensiveness; it does not suffer from some of the issues of only fitting certain situations like the previous options. We also see this symbolism between humans and animals related to the law show up in other writings and explanations of these laws in antiquity. Further, the New Testament does see the food laws as a symbolic division between Jew and Gentile and Jesus declares all foods clean as a consequence of all, Jew and Gentile, being united by Him in this new agreement or covenant. As the distinction between Jew and Gentile became obsolete, so did the food laws that served as a reminder of that distinction.

What do we do with them today? We can recognize that these laws point to a holy and pure God who still calls us to be holy and pure like Him. We remain a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (1 Peter). We run the risk, perhaps, that these laws were meant to curb in the ancient Israelites, and that is the tendency to forget God’s holiness, His call on our lives to live consistent with that, and a constant reminder of His gracious actions towards us, His unwarranted mercy and His granting to us the honor of bearing His name when we do not deserve it.