Preliminary thoughts on Leviticus 2005 April 2 for 27^th

In the middle of Exodus, somewhere a few chapters after the Ten Commandments, I commented that we were entering the part of the Law that it was difficult for me to stay awake through. Leviticus, the next book by Moses, continues with even more detailed regulations on living. Do we find this uninteresting because we are out of touch with God (that is, sinful) or because we do not see the relevance to our existence today, or because something is lost in the translation or for some other reason?

On the other side of the spectrum, I remember the statement of Wetherel Johnson, the founder and leader of Bible Study Fellowship, that Leviticus read like a "fast paced mystery novel." The conclusion that we BSFers were supposed to jump to on hearing this was that Ms. Johnson was super spiritual to be able to see this material in that way. In retrospect, I think it may have just been public relations.

One of the motivations for this series has been to get into some of this detailed law in some detail and to see how the whole body of it fits together with respect to the fact that modern day Christians like to pick a verse here and a verse there to prove that God wants or doesn't want us to do certain things. We already established in discussing Exodus that modern Protestants have pretty much discarded all of the Law anyway, for a variety of reasons and rationalizations, except for the verse here and verse there that they want to apply, usually to somebody else.

In Leviticus, the Israelites are in the desert. As we've already seen, Moses has no word processor and is not able to rearrange and edit what he writes from time to time, so we have a collection of whatever came up next on this scroll. Regulations today, battle accounts the next, group movements on another, specific incidents of sin and punishment on occasion. The people will live in the desert for a generation, punishment for their "unbelief" at the foot of the mountain when they gave up on Moses and built their own god out of gold jewelry. Or maybe it is punishment for not believing the minority scouting report when they arrived at the Promised Land and going on in boldly. We'll see as we go forward. Whatever the case, they are camped in the wilderness for an entire generation and during that time, they set up worship, subsist on God's provision, and Moses writes these laws.

The laws are God's shortcuts to a life better, gentler, and calmer than the life of strife and fighting for needs, of paranoia of spiritual forces beyond our control, that we might experience just living by natural drives and instincts.. The laws are specific instructions to prevent people from having to relearn generation after generation what works in society and what doesn't, what works personally and what doesn't, what is fair and what is unfair. The laws are a huge improvement over the old "might makes right" way of living that man had ascended through for the prior ages. (Well, and the present too, actually; current events come to mind.) Nearly no one alive today could have been here if our ancestors had not had the law. Of course, God, and to a lesser extent, the Egyptian trained Moses, have a broader perspective on society than the average person just looking out for his own interests does.

So now we continue into the third of the five books of the Law by Moses. Let's see what we, 21^st century American Protestants, can do with this material. How does it inform and instruct us? How does it really command us? How does it bring us into contact with God?

Leviticus 1 - 2 2005 April 2 for 28^th

God called Moses into the tent of meeting and the very first instructions he gave had to do with the proper way to offer burnt offerings. Whether from herd or flock, it is to be a "male without defect". It is to be killed on the north side of the tent and the blood sprinkled on the altar and around the sides of the entrance to the tent (like during the Passover). They skin and cut the animal up, wash the inner parts, and burn it on the altar in a wood fire "an aroma pleasing to the Lord." Any remains are disposed of on the east side.

There are similar instructions for sheep and for birds. With birds, the priests are just to drain out the blood at the side of the altar and tear the bird without totally severing it.

There is interesting language usage in the selection of offerings. Each section begins with a sentence like: "If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer a male without defect."

That is to say, if it is a cow, here is the cow to pick.

The same applies to the instructions for grain offerings. In essence, 'if your grain offering was baked in a pan, here is what you must have put into the pan for the offering to be acceptable.'

There are specific instructions for offerings of grain, grain offerings that are baked, and grain offerings that are cooked in pans. In each case, a particular type of flour or other material is used with certain oils or incense. Some is burned and the rest is for the priests to eat.

Yeast or honey can never be used but salt must always be used.

So we have to ask the question, how is this relevant to the offerings we make to God today? To my knowledge, direct offerings are either monetary gifts to a church or para-church organization, or some sort of volunteer service at such an institution. Indirect offerings are doing nice things for others, perhaps with an ulterior motive such as long-term evangelism. These offerings are a far cry from those.

Sometimes these days, one hears preaching that allegorizes the offerings of today to these burnt offerings of the past. A charitable act like visitation of the sick will be referred to as "an aroma pleasing to the Lord" but I see this as mostly showmanship and/or a weak attempt to embrace some part of these ancient regulations. Such acts may indeed be pleasing to the Lord, but I don't really buy the burnt offering connection.

Leviticus 3 - 4:21 2005 April 4 for 29^th

Now we turn to “Fellowship Offerings” but, to my eye, the procedures for offering them are not much different from those for the burnt offerings. In this instance, specific instructions are given for animals from the herd, from the flock, and for goats. (I think herds consist of cows and flocks consist of sheep.)

Any fat part of these animals is burnt up on the altar although some of the rest of the animal is used as food for the priests. “This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live; You must no eat any fat or any blood.” Good advice even when we’re not speaking of animal sacrifice ritual regulations.

Sin offerings are dealt with differently. There are no options as to the type of animal but rather a distinction is made depending on who committed the sin. If it is the anointed priest, he must bring a young bull (as always, without defect) and he lays his hands on it while it is killed. If it is the whole Israelite community (whether they are aware it is sin or not) they must bring a bull (after they do become aware of the sin) and the elders lay their hands on it while it is being slaughtered. The details of the dismemberment and disposition of all the bodily parts, including blood, are given. Anything not covered, (the offal, and everything else that is left) is taken outside the camp and burned on a ceremonially clean ash heap, presumably one maintained just for this purpose.

I realize that any of us could take courses in what all this really means, symbolically, culturally, and so forth. We would benefit from what we learned about what is really going on here, however, none of this extra material is presented to us in the Bible itself, aside from what we can divine, at our own risk, from translated context.

The basic point that any Christian should have been taught is that any sin deserves a death. We saw this first with Adam and Eve. When they first became separated from God and aware of their nakedness, they tried to use fig leaves to cover themselves, but God provided the skin of a previously living animal instead, a more proper material for the harsh environment of the new world. Sin is not a particular set of acts or omissions, it is general separation from God, for us as it was for that first couple. Alienation from God is inevitable for humans and God’s price for it is a life. In his mercy, he allows, at this point in the Bible, the lives of prize animals for most sins in substitution for the life of the sinner. What we have here in Leviticus is formalization, clarification, and expansion on this principle.

Leviticus 4:22 - 5:13 2005 April 4 for May 2^nd

Continuing with offerings for sins, if only a leader (as opposed to the priest or the whole community) sins, his forfeit is a “male goat without defect.” If it is only a member of the community, a female goat or a female lamb is offered according to similar sacrificial instructions.

We thus deduce the relative value of the animals. Bull from the herd is highest, then lamb, then goat, with female lambs or goats being last, and equivalent to each other.

I know enough about modern ranching to know that a prize bull is quite valuable. Sacrificing it would be equivalent to a fine of several thousand dollars, not deadly to the rancher’s livelihood (generally), but certainly painful. Sins, and the payment for them is not taken lightly.

Now some specific sins are actually listed. So far in all of Leviticus, we have only received instructions regarding the sacrifices. Now, a few guilt-inducing items are given.

- not speaking up with needed in public testimony

- touching anything ceremonially unclean, such as carcasses of:

o unclean wild animals

o wild creatures

o unclean livestock

o unclean creatures that move along the ground

- touching human uncleanness (undefined except to say “anything that makes him unclean”)

- thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, good or bad

Even if unaware of the action, when he becomes aware (it doesn’t say “if he becomes aware” it says “when he becomes aware”), he must offer a female lamb or goat. If he can’t afford that, two doves or two young pigeons are the penalty. If he can’t afford that, about two quarts of fine flour is presented.

The rules for presenting and sacrificing these are similar to those from before, including the fact that only part of any such flour offering is burned, the rest is for the priests for food.

Leviticus 5:14 - 6:30 2005 April 9 for May 3^rd

Another category of offerings has to do with guilt. Guilt here is defined as unintentionally doing something forbidden by God. (Intentional sin is not covered yet.) In addition to making restitution for what was stolen, lost, lied about, sworn falsely, extorted, or whatever, the cost for someone who "commits any such sin that people may do--" is the original value plus one fifth (that is 20%). There is also a penalty of a ram from the flock, one without defect and properly valued "according to the sanctuary shekel" which seems to be the standard currency. By "restitution" I think that means that the payback and 20% interest goes to whoever was wronged. The penalty ram goes to the priests who use it to make atonement. The person is then no longer guilty and is forgiven.

A note about burnt offerings: Every day a priest must put on the priestly underwear and clean all the ashes off of the altar. He is then to change clothes (to something not sanctified) and take the ashes outside the camp "to a place that is ceremonially clean." He also has to add wood to the fire on the altar every day so that it never goes out.

Grain offerings are given to the priests (any "male descendant of Aaron") to eat, but a "memorial portion" is burned before the Lord as an offering, and none of it can be cooked with any yeast. They are to eat outside of the Tent of Meeting in the courtyard.

When a priest himself offers a grain offering, the entire thing is burned up.

The sin offering is slaughtered in the same place the burnt offering is slaughtered, but the meat is cooked for food for the priests. If it is cooked in a clay pot, the pot has to be broken, but if in a metal pot, it is scoured and rinsed when finished. This has something to do with the vessel having become holy. Anything this food, or the grain offering food touches becomes holy. I'm not sure what that means. Sometimes holy things have to be destroyed. Sometimes they can only be used with other holy things or by holy people.

Oh, if any blood from the sin offering makes its way into the tent somehow then everything must be burned.

Leviticus 7 2005 April 11 for May 4^th

Here are more instructions regarding the various offerings. Guilt and burnt offerings are to be slaughtered in the same place. All the fat is taken out and burned on the altar as a … guilt offering. Same thing with sin offerings and grain offerings, they all become property of the priest who performs the ceremony.

Then, there is an offering called a "fellowship offering", an expression of thankfulness. This means that it is not necessary to sin to be eligible to make an offering. You can do it just from gratitude. These offerings have to be eaten on the day when they are offered, anything left over until the next day is discarded but this is not the case with "freewill" offerings or those resulting from vows. Leftovers can be eaten on the second day, but not the third. Violating these limits will result in being held responsible, perhaps being cut off from the people.

Any meat, no matter how old, that touches anything ceremonially unclean has to be burned up totally. "If anyone touches something unclean -- whether human uncleanness or an unclean animal or any unclean, detestable thing -- and then eats any of the meat of the fellowship offering belonging to the Lord, that person must be cut off from his people."

It is reiterated that no fat or blood can be eaten. Doing these are also "cut off from his people" offenses. It is not clear from this whether it means "all" the people, forcing him to live as an alien among the heathen or as a hermit in the desert (or die) or just from "his people", as in, his tribe, forcing him to live as an alien in another tribe. I've always assumed the former but can't say why.

Finally, the fact is reiterated that the priests in Tabernacle service, Aaron and his descendants, have a share in all these offerings, the parts that are not burned to ashes that is, as their food and property.

As we mentioned before in Exodus, these writings do not seem to be organized or collected very well. I can imagine a tabbed notebook with tabs for "burnt," "sin," "fellowship," etc. offerings and an introduction with the general rules such as "no fat," "no blood," "belongs to priests," "burn on clean ash heap," and so on. What we have here looks more like instructions that came up at the moment and were extended, on the next sheet of lamb skin, as needed, possibly as Moses remembered more detail or as issues came up in practice. Sometimes knowledge of certain offerings, such as vows, is mentioned but not discussed in detail until much later in the book.

At the end here, it summarizes that these are the regulations given by God to Moses on the mountain. Perhaps it would be tampering with and diminishing the inerrant word of God to reorganize them into a more useful format. Perhaps by seeking editorial efficiency I am missing the point. Disorganization, after all, leads to a need for greater study.

Hebrew is much further removed from English than Greek (from which the New Testament is translated). Doubtless, there is intent and nuance that we miss due to our cultural perspective and language differences.

Leviticus 8 2005 April 11 for May 5^th

With the laws and regulations in place, God now ordered that Moses perform the ceremony to consecrate the priests and the Tent of Meeting. Moses called in Aaron and his sons and the entire assembly. He put the special clothes on Aaron, described here in explicit detail again, then anointed Aaron and everything in the tabernacle with the special anointing oil, then put the tunics on Aaron's sons.

They then all put their hands on the bull for the sacrifice and slaughtered it. Moses took all the fat and burned it on the altar.

A ram was then sacrificed as a burnt offering and another ram as an ordination offering. . Moses put bull blood on everything, the horns of the altar, the priest's right big toes and thumbs. Moses took a basket of bread made without yeast and a cake and a wafer and the right thigh of the lamb and put them in Aaron's hands and "waved them before the Lord as a wave offering." This was all then burned on the altar, after which Moses took some blood and some anointing oil and sprinkled it on the altar and the priestly garments.

They cooked some of the meat and ate it and they ate some of the bread, then Moses told them that this was all for their atonement and that they had to stay in the tabernacle for seven days to complete the ceremony, which they did.

Leviticus 9 - 10 2005 April 12 for May 6^th

On the eighth day, after the seven day ordination ceremony, Moses had Aaron and his sons came with the elders (not the whole assembly) and had Aaron perform the sin offering (with a bull) and burnt offering (with a ram) himself. He did this exactly as specified, exactly as demonstrated by Moses previously. After he had gone through all the steps (removing the fat, washing parts, burning, and so forth), Aaron blessed the people. Having done all this as instructed, "he stepped down."

He and Moses then went into the Tent of Meeting, then came out and blessed the people again and the "glory of the Lord appeared to all the people. Fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar. And when all the people saw it, they shouted for joy and fell facedown."

I think what we've seen here is something different from just the normal fire burning fat and animal parts on the altar, something that was surprising and unique to the people.

The story then turns dark.

Two of Aaron's four sons, Nadab and Abihu, put fire and incense in their censers and "offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord."

Moses seized the opportunity as a teachable moment, quoting God to Aaron,

"Among those who approach me I will show myself holy;

in the sight of all the people I will be honored."

We had seen that most every violation here in the desert was a death penalty in some form. Certainly, dealing with God informally is seen as a prime one.

Moses sent for some cousins and had them carry the dead priests, still in their tunics, "away from the front of the sanctuary" to the outside of the camp.

Moses then instructed Aaron and the remaining sons that, although their families and the people in general could mourn for the dead, the priests themselves could not mourn for their dead sons and brothers, "Do not let your hair become unkempt; and do not tear your clothes, or you will die and the Lord will be angry with the whole community."

God then spoke directly to Aaron, "You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die."

Some, particularly those who scan the Bible in support of temperance, think that Nadab and Abihu were drunk and that is how they managed to make this mistake. While this also agrees with my "give new rules as experience dictates their need” theory, the event and the rule may not be related. It does not say that they were and the style of the language used elsewhere throughout these books would certainly go on and on about a connection if their were one, something like, "Since Nadab and Abihu were drunk before the Lord, the Lord killed them beside the altar," and so forth.

A standard OSHA investigation of this incident would reveal many shortcomings by modern standards: lack of adequate training, lack of adequate attire, operation of an untested and potentially hazardous device, inadequate documentation. Just because God and Moses knew it all and had walked Aaron and his sons through some procedures once doesn't mean that Aaron and his sons knew what they were doing.

It is theorized that the altar, wood overlayed with gold, was a huge capacitor and that static electricity of sufficient voltage and current to kill could easily build up on the structure, particularly in a desert setting such as this. This theory is quite plausible, but should not diminish the commanded need for reverent and respectful handling of the items of worship.

The day of consecration and sadness continued and later on, Moses, finding that Aaron and his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, had not eaten the sin offering (a goat) in the sanctuary area, gave them some more instruction: "It is most holy; it was given to you to take away the guilt of the community by making atonement for them before the Lord. Since its blood was not taken into the Holy Place, you should have eaten the goat in the sanctuary area, as I commanded."

Moses just wouldn't let it rest. Perhaps this was his own way of mourning the loss of his nephews.

Aaron replied in essence that they had done everything as commanded but would it really have made God happy for them to have a big celebratory feast on this day of death? At that point, Moses did let it rest.

Leviticus 11 2005 April 12 for May 9^th

We now move into the regulations about what is to be eaten or not eaten. We are introduced, without elaboration, to the concepts of "clean", "unclean", and "detestable." In general, something that is not to be eaten is also "detestable". Touching the carcass of an unclean animal is not permitted, but touching (i.e., dealing with) the carcass of a food animal only makes the handler "unclean until evening," an oft repeated phrase.

To summarize, land animals that chew cud and have cloven hooves may be eaten. Excluded then are: camel, coney, rabbit, and pig and any animal that walks on paws (i.e., dogs, cats, and bears). Also unclean are: weasel, rat, any kind of great lizard, gecko, monitor lizard, wall lizard, skink, and chameleon.

Water animals must have scales and fins to be edible. All others are to be detested and not eaten. None are listed, but this rules out worms and eels.

A list of detestable, inedible birds: eagle, vulture, black vulture, red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, horned owl, screech owl, gull, any kind of hawk, little owl, cormorant, great owl, white owl, desert owl, osprey, stork, any kind of heron, hoopoe, and bat.

Flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable, however, those with jointed legs for hopping are edible. Those that may be eaten include any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, and grasshopper.

Further, if some of this unclean matter falls into a pot, the pot must be broken, and anything that was in it, or touched by something poured from it is also unclean. A cistern or spring is OK, but not a pot. If a carcass falls on unplanted seeds, they are still OK for planting, but if they've already been planted and watered or if they are watered from such a pot, they are unclean.

Finally, anything that crawls around on its belly is unclean.

Because the God that brought them out of Egypt is holy, the people are to consecrate themselves and follow all these directives about cleanness and eating.

Leviticus 12 - 13:46 2005 April 13 for May 10^th

Women who give birth are unclean. If it is a boy, the uncleanness is for seven days, the boy is circumcised on the eighth day, and she is then unclean for thirty-three more days. If it is a girl, she is unclean for two weeks, ("as in her period") then sixty-six days to be "purified from her bleeding." At the end of this time, an offering similar to a sin offering is given, a lamb, or two doves or two young pigeons for a burnt offering. After the priest makes atonement, she is clean and can once again touch ceremonially clean things and go near the sanctuary.

We have not yet seen the rules for menstrual impurity; this being one of many forward references, but we do see that menstruation and childbirth are similar in consequence to unintentional sin.

An extensive section follows on skin diseases and their treatment. The main point does not seem to be medical treatment, but determination of cleanness or uncleanness for ceremonial and isolation purposes. Conditions covered are: swelling or a rash or a bright spot on the skin, infectious skin disease, boils, burns, sores on the head or chin (men or women), white spots on the skin, hair loss, and reddish-white sores.

In general, the priest or one of his sons must examine anyone with such conditions. There are criteria for the examination, such as the color and condition of the hair in the sore or spot. Typically, the person is "isolated" for seven days then re-examined. If nothing has changed, the person is isolated for another seven days, then re-examined again. At each examination, there are criteria for determination of cleanness and uncleanness. The only one that is really a surprise is:

"If the disease breaks out all over his skin and, so far as the priest can see, it covers all the skin of the infected person from head to foot, the priest is to examine him, and if the disease has covered his whole body, he shall pronounce that person clean. Since it has all turned white, he is clean."

How interesting.

In most cases this does not happen (although a person who has lost all is hair and is bald is clean). In the worst case, a "person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of his face, and cry out, 'Unclean! Unclean!' As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp.

This is nearly the "cut off from his people" penalty.

So, no treatments are prescribed but we see that skin diseases, rashes, infections, and normal signs of aging are taken very seriously, categorized, and used as the basis for pronouncing people clean or unclean. These are not categorized as sins. Sins seem to have to do with the intent and the will, not the various functions or malfunctions of the body, but some of the consequences are similar.

Leviticus 13:47 - 14:32 2005 April 15 for May 11^th

Now we consider uncleanness in cloth, woven or knitted; leather, linen, or woolen. If any of these get mildew, they have to be examined by the priests. He puts the article in isolation for seven days and looks at it again. If the mildew has faded, the mildewed part can be torn out and the rest of the item washed twice and then it can be clean. Otherwise, if the mildew has stayed the same or increased, it is unclean and the piece has to be burned up in the fire to prevent destructive spreading.

The next section concerns the ceremony for restoring a person who has recovered from an infectious skin disease to cleanness. I'm sure this ceremony is serious and full of meaningful symbolism, but I had to laugh at the nearly comic nature of it:

"… the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn, and hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed. Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the infectious disease and pronounce him clean. Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields."

I hope it is not a sacrilege to be amused at all this shouting and dancing with birds over fresh water in clay pots. I was raised in "low church" where all such "nonsense" was pretty much eschewed.

But that's not all. This first ritual occurs outside the camp, where the unclean person has been living. He can then go into the camp, but not to his home. (Where he is to go in the camp is not stated.) He stays outside of his tent for seven days then on the eighth day brings two lambs (or birds if he is poor) and some oil and some flour and he and the priest go through an elaborate guilt offering sacrifice where blood is put on the big toe of his right foot and his right thumb and oil is sprinkled all over the place and put on his head.

The second animal is then sacrificed as a sin offering to make atonement. Parts are waved before the Lord during the ritual. This is all kind of a potpourri of the various offerings specified before.

This reminds me of the difficulty of paying a major medical bill in the aftermath of a health crisis, very expensive and focusing. It also makes modern day Masonic rituals, something else that we in low church made fun of, seem tame by comparison.

With the Israelites numbering around a million, surely the three priests were extremely busy with all of this, even if it was just infirmary work like inspecting clothes.

Leviticus 14:33 - 15:33 2005 April 16 for May 12^th

Houses can have mildew too. If someone thinks their house has mildew, he contacts the priest for an inspection and the priest orders the house emptied before he goes in so that if he pronounces it unclean, at least the contents will not also be unclean.

(Something about this seems a bit disingenuous. What matters here seems to be what the priest sees in the house, not what was actually in the house, in contact with the mildew.)

Of course, anyone who goes into an unclean house becomes unclean, usually "until evening."

Based on certain criteria, the priest may then have the house closed off for seven days, then re-inspected. At that point, he might just have the mildewed materials (stone and plaster) torn out and taken to an unclean place out of town, then the hole repaired with new materials, but if it's bad enough, the entire house might be ordered torn down and carted off to the unclean place at the dump.

If the plaster repair works and subsequent inspections are fine, the house must be purified with a ceremony similar to the one we found humorous yesterday for the cleansing of skin diseases, the one with the two birds and the clay pot, hyssop and scarlet yarn, and letting one bird go free.

The next section deals with bodily emissions and discharges. The summary of it all is at the end "You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them."

So, let's see what can make an individual unclean. There are four cases: A man with a bodily discharge, a man with an emission of semen, a women with her "regular flow of blood" (seven days) and a woman who has a "discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period" or one that "continues beyond her period."

This last case and the one called "discharge" for men are the ones that require a sacrifice of birds at the Tent of Meeting, a sin offering for atonement. Having an unusual discharge is sinful. The others only result in being "unclean until evening" but there is significant additional detail.

It is not specific about the difference between a "discharge" and an "emission" although, if a discharge is merely bodily regularity, no one could ever be clean at any time, so the term "discharge" must refer to something unusual. Still, one is left wondering if this means drainage from blisters or boils, or diarrhea, or a snotty nose, or just what.

Whatever the case, when these people are unclean for these reasons, pretty much anything they sit on, anything they touch, anything they ride on, or anything they use is unclean. Any clay pot touched has to be broken and "any wooden article is to be rinsed with water." After the discharge stops, they are to count off seven days, then wash themselves and their clothes and go to the Tent of Meeting for their purification sacrifice.

Further, anyone they touch or "spit on" become unclean and have to wash everything and be unclean until evening.

Yep, unclean people are going around spitting on their neighbors enough to warrant mention in the rules.

Also detailed is the case of men and women lying together and having emissions. Of course this amounts to touching so they both become unclean until evening and must wash everything and everything that either of them touches, including each other and their bed and any clothes, whether it is menstrual emission or an emission of semen. All the uncleanness is shared, including the seven days counted off. Interestingly, it does not discuss marriage in this context. These are only the rules of personal and copular hygiene with men and women lying together.

It is no wonder then that sexual activity is considered "dirty".

Although we have established that Christians who believe the Bible and take it seriously today don't do most of this, I wonder if any do follow such rules as these, excepting, of course, the burnt offerings of birds?

I wonder if the "unclean until evening" refrain has to do with a lack of good anti-bacterial soap?

Leviticus 16 2005 April 16 for May 13^th

Following the death of the two sons of Aaron, God gave Moses some new rules for approaching the altar. It would not be done just any time the priest pleased because God appeared there at times and the priest would die if he was caught. Rather, there would be an annual day of atonement when the head priest would bathe and put on the special garments and take several animals in as offerings: a bull, a ram, and two goats.

First, using a familiar looking procedure, the bull would be offered for the priest's sin and those of his family. At first this would be Aaron, then his appointed heir throughout all generations. The ram was offered as a burnt offering.

Next, lots were thrown to decide which goat would be slaughtered as a sin offering for all the people and which will be the "scapegoat." The sacrificial goat was treated much as the bull, spreading the blood about and dealing with the various body parts, burning and disposing, and so forth. Both were sin offerings. The priest took blood behind the curtain to the altar on behalf of all the people. The scapegoat, however, was a new institution.

After the sacrifices were made, the remaining goat was brought. Aaron would lay his hands on it and "confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites -- all their sins -- and put them on the goat's head." The goat was then guided away from the camp by another person, into the wilderness, where he was released.

The priest would then take off the special garments, bathe again and put on his regular clothes, then burn the fat of the sin offerings on the altar. Similarly, the man who was in charge of the scapegoat was required to bathe and wash his clothes before returning.

Accompanied by Sabbath rest and self-denial, this day was to be the tenth day of the seventh month each year. Everyone in the community, native or not, was required to observe it in perpetuity.

The Hebrew Calendar does not match ours so this does not correspond to July 10^th.

It occurs to me a possible reason why God required these animals to be sacrificed with such ceremony and with such gravity. It might be because, moving about in the desert, these animals, after the people themselves, were the most important property that anyone possessed. Further, they were critical sources of food. One could construct by analogy today a system in which God requires sacrifice of the most important and critical possessions in our own lives. Indeed, concepts such as these are fundamental to our faith: sacrificial self-denial.

This extension is not made in the Bible, however, only through the analogies of modern Bible students. Still, this does give hints as to the character of God and that of some of his closest follower - leaders. Discovery of these qualities is one reason why we are here.

Leviticus 17-18 2005 April 18 for May 16^th

Rules about home sacrifices: Don't do it. All sacrifices are to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting so that the sacrifice will be to God and the fat will be burned properly on the altar. Anybody who performs a sacrifice anywhere else, in the camp or in the fields, will be "guilty of bloodshed" and is to be "cut off from his people." This is taken by God as prostitution since typically, these outside sacrifices are to other gods, the "goat idols" for which a footnote says "demons."

The life of a creature is in its blood and the blood is given for making atonement. When an animal is killed for food, the blood must be drained out and covered with dirt. Anyone who eats blood will be cut off from his people.

It isn't such a bad sin to eat an animal found dead or torn by wild animals; it just makes one unclean and, after washing, bathing, and waiting until evening, they become clean again. If the sinner doesn't do this, however, "he will be held responsible." It doesn't say what that means.

Here is a list of people for a man not to have sex with along with rationale. (Rationale is rare in the Bible, at least so far.) The rationale is of two types. 1. It is not good to have sex with a close relative. 2. The surrounding countries, that is, Egypt where they are coming from, and Canaan, where they are going, do these practices, and because they did they "became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants." Similarly, if the Israelites do these things in these lands, it will vomit them out too. Each prohibition is classified. Either the person is too close of a relative and thus it would be dishonorable, or it is "wickedness" or it is "detestable." We have seen these words before. Eating an eel or a dolphin that came from the sea but did not have fins or scales was called "detestable" for example.

Here is the list of people who a man should not have sex with: his mother, his step-mother, his sister, (that is, any daughter of his mother, step-mother, or father), his grand-daughter (son's or daughter's), his aunt (father's or mother's sister), his uncle's wife, his daughter-in-law, his sister-in-law.

Also, he should not have sex with both a woman and her daughter. He should not take both a woman and her sister as wives, this creates rivalry. (We note that this was the situation with the patriarch Israel himself, that his twelve sons were the children of two rival sisters and their two servants.) Well, (it goes on to say) at least not while the first wife is living.

A man is not to have sex with a woman during menstruation, or his neighbor's wife, or another man.

There is one prohibition for women. "A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it."

And there is one general prohibition: "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God."

While most of these relations would be considered to be some form of adultery or incest, marriage itself appears to be only a secondary matter here. Marriage may be assumed, either in place between sexual partners or ex-post-facto, that is, a man having sex with a woman is then be required to marry her (if possible and allowed), an age-old shot-gun tradition.

The reason given for a man not having sex with his mother is because it would dishonor his father, not because it is incest. The reason given for a man not having sex with his sister-in-law is because it dishonors his brother, not because it is adultery. The reason given for not sacrificing children to Molech is that it profanes God's name, not that the life of the child is sacred.

Although not explicitly stated, these reasons and the comments about the neighboring nations vomiting them out are sometimes construed to imply that these practices all are parts of idol worship practiced by those nations, false, competing, profane, and "wicked" religions, most of which go back to the dawn of man's consciousness. (Recall the days before Noah where so much of this was going on that God drowned everybody in sight.) While this is probably true in part, it looks to me like many of these cases just having to do with exercising respect and self-control in the presence of attractive relatives.

The penalty for any of these is that "such persons must be cut off from their people."

Leviticus 19 2005 April 19 for May 17^th

This chapter is a collection of various laws. Some of it looks like re-wordings of the Ten Commandments, some of it has to do with sacrifices; some of it has to do with personal care or personal relationships or contracts. Much of it repeats what we have seen before; some of it has to do with competing religions. Nearly in bullet form, this is more like what we expect from a book that is "the law."

Here is a summary.

Respect your parents; observe the Sabbaths and have reverence for God's sanctuary. Don't make or use idols.

Fellowship offerings may be eaten the day of the sacrifice and the next but not on the third day.

Don't steal, lie, deceive, swear falsely by God's name, defraud or rob your neighbor, keep back a hired person's wages overnight, curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind. Such practical jokes are not funny to God.

Are bi-weekly paychecks therefore an abomination? Perhaps only for hourly workers?

Be fair and don't show favoritism to the poor or rich, spread slander, or endanger anybody's life.

This is an interesting proverb: "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt." This sounds like Jesus talking and it says that if you know something is wrong and don't get in your neighbor's face about it, you too are guilty.

Don't bear grudges or seek revenge, mate different kinds of animals, or grow two kinds of seed in a field. (So much for mules!) Oh, "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." What do you suppose that's all about? Do such clothes tear up and lead to indecency? If so, it could say so.

If a man has sex with a slave woman who was promised to someone else, he must be punished, but not put to death because the woman was not free. He owes a ram as a guilt offering at the Tent of Meeting.

In a new land, when you plant a fruit tree, the fruit is forbidden for three years then sacred, devoted to God, in the fourth. In the fifth year it can be eaten.

Don't eat meat with blood in it. Do not practice divination or sorcery. "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

Are these style rules similar to the World War Two American butch and burr haircuts and clean-shaven look used to distinguish fine upstanding friends from unkempt foes?

"Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves." These must refer to pagan practices with which we are unfamiliar, unhealthy and dangerous in addition to the implication of practicing or flirting with other religions.

Don't make your daughter a prostitute or use mediums or spiritists.

"Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God."

Don't mistreat aliens in your country, recalling that the Israelites were once aliens in Egypt.

Use honest standards of measure: length, weight, volume, and quantity. Calibrate your standard test equipment to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. (Just kidding.)

Leviticus 20 2005 April 20 for May 18^th

This chapter gives the actual penalties for violating any of the laws put down in the last chapter. There are three general types of penalties: to have God turn away, to be put to death in some way, and something less such as being childless.

Anyone who sacrifices their child to Molech gets a death sentence. If their community just ignores it, he and his family will all be cut off.

The penalty for consulting a medium or spiritist is that God will set his face against that person and cut them off.

Death by stoning is prescribed for: cursing your father or mother, committing adultery, sleeping with a daughter-in-law, another man, or an animal (man or woman, as before). In all cases, both parties are killed, including any animal involved.

(I've read that we, today, rarely enforce the death penalty against "rebellious and foolish" teenagers who curse their parents.)

Death by being burned in fire is reserved for all three people when a man marries both a woman and her mother.

Lesser penalties:

One is merely cut off from the people for marrying his sister or half sister or lying with a woman during menstruation.

The penalty of being childless is reserved for a man who sleeps with or marries his aunt or his sister-in-law.

The penalty section closes with a reiteration of the language about the land vomiting the people out for behaving in these ways (as the people who live there now do) and an exhortation to be sure and make the distinction between clean and unclean birds and animals.

Finally, anyone who is a medium or spiritist (as opposed to merely consulting one as discussed above) is to be stoned to death.

It appears that God is trying to keep the people out of serious trouble with each other and with him. One thing confuses me though. Throughout this part, the terms "marry" and "sleeps with" or "have sexual relations with" are used nearly interchangeably. For example, "If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless."

This isn't even good grammar. Who is "they?" The first couple, the second couple, or all three people? How can a person marry his brother's wife? Why isn't that adultery? Who would perform such a ceremony if anyone knew the situation? Is this the sin of Herod and Herodias that, by preaching against it, got John the Baptist beheaded? Indeed, didn't we see that the law actually requires a man to marry his brother's wife after his brother's death if the original couple had been childless, in order to carry on the line? Impracticable (or unfair, or in fact, contradictory with this passage) as that may seem, this doesn't appear to be talking about dead brothers, it appears to be talking about living brothers.

Perhaps this is aimed at a case where the brother is out of the picture, has walked out or is on a trip or working in another place or is of unknown whereabouts and the brother who is present is taking care of his in-laws. (Such situations and marriages were not uncommon in 19^th Century U.S.A.) I am just speculating now in an attempt to understand what is really being said here; none of this is stated.

Around half of the penalties specified in this chapter are worded in confusing or ambiguous ways like this. The Hebrew language, from which this is translated, is somewhat different from ours, and by implication the Hebrew ways of thought are also somewhat different. One way to read these is that they are really all the same, only with different wordings. A modern conservative, after all, sees everything discussed here as taboo. A modern liberal sees it all as antiquated and irrelevant. I doubt that either reading is really what we are trying to grasp here.

I concede that much of my confusion may result from information or intent lost in translation. I maintain that a logical, computer-parser-like reading of this text is highly problematic. To be understood plainly against the simplest rules of logic or English grammar, this text would need serious editing. I am glad not to be a trial judge trying to fairly interpret and dispense these laws.

You will recall that this exercise is one of studying the Bible as it was provided to me, an average intellect, in print in my language. The intent is not to get sidetracked into studies of Hebrew linguistics, ancient cultures, or other background investigations. Why should it be necessary to do these things to reach a God who is living and active today and who has provided this text for that purpose? We claimed at the outset that it must be possible for God to speak through these many filters. We patiently persevere.

Leviticus 21 - 22:16 2005 April 21 for May 19^th

The priests, as the most holy of this holy people, had special rules.

Touching or being in the same room with a dead body makes one ceremonially unclean. When someone dies, someone in the family must become unclean to deal with it. A priest is not allowed to do this for anyone except a very close relative. For his own immediate family (father, mother, son, daughter) it is permissible but not his in-laws or any of the more distant relatives. A priest cannot marry a woman who has been a prostitute or divorced. This is "Because they present the offerings made to the Lord by fire, the food of their God, they are to be holy."

That term "food of their God" is interesting. Do they think they are sustaining God, or is this a euphemism, an anthropomorphization? Is this a slip, something 'borrowed' from more pagan beliefs?

If a priest's daughter becomes a prostitute, he is defiled. She must be "burned in the fire."

The high priest, the one "who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments" has even higher standards. He can't tear his clothes (a sign of mourning) or go anyplace with a dead body no matter who it is. He must marry a virgin (apparently a higher standard than just "not divorced, not prostitute, not widow).

People in the priestly line who are defective may eat the food from the offerings but may not go anywhere near God or his curtain or his altar because their defect would "desecrate the sanctuary." The list of defects is, "blind, lame, disfigured, deformed, crippled [in foot or hand,] hunchbacked, dwarfed, having any eye defect, festering or running sore, or damaged testicles." It does not say whether this list is exclusive or only exemplary.

No one with any problem or uncleanness can come near any of the offerings, that is, eat the sacrifices. Priests may become unclean in any of the same ways that anyone else does, by "touching something defiled by a corpse or by anyone who has an emission of semen, or any crawling thing or any person that makes him unclean." When this happens, he is unclean until evening, must bathe, and must stay away from the offerings out of respect for their holiness.

Only people in the priest's household can eat the offerings. If a daughter marries out of the priesthood, she has to stop, but if she becomes widowed and comes back into the priest's home, she can be supported by offerings again.

It is, of course, a sin to eat the sacred offerings by mistake (without authorization but without knowing). The restitution is to return what was taken by mistake with a 20% penalty.

The case of David and his men who were hungry and ate the sacred bread right off the altar comes to mind. Jesus asked of this, was it the bread that was sacred or the altar that made the bread sacred? Such notions appear to have been beyond Moses at this time of establishment.

Leviticus 22:17 - 23:22 2005 April 22 for May 20^th

Some freewill offerings are not acceptable. In general, the same list of defects that makes a member of the priestly family unqualified to offer sacrifices makes an animal unqualified to be a sacrifice. This includes the blind, injured, maimed, anything with warts or festering or running sores, deformed, stunted or "whose testicles are bruised, crushed, torn or cut."

I was taught that the point here was that it wasn't much of a sacrifice to kill an animal with such problems that made it less valuable for other uses, such as the making of hides, or eating, or breeding.

A young animal must remain with its mother for seven days. On and after the eighth day it is suitable for such an offering, but don’t slaughter such an animal and its mother on the same day.

Any reasoning for this is not given.

God requires several feasts, that is, sacred assemblies.

The Sabbath. As stated before, there are six days in which to work, the seventh is for rest or for sacred assembly.

The Passover, instituted on the night before the Israelites left Egypt, is to be observed on the fourteenth day of the first month. The next day and for the following seven days, the Feast of Unleavened Bread is observed. On the first day a sacred assembly is held and on all days, no work is to be done.

Once they are in the Promised Land and they have crops, a feast of "first fruits" will be observed. Once the first grain is harvested, it is brought and waved on the day after the next Sabbath. Also, a yearling lamb is brought for a burnt offering.

Beginning on the day of that offering, fifty days is counted up to the day after the seventh subsequent Sabbath. On that day, an offering of new grain is brought in the form of loaves baked with (yes, with) yeast. This along with seven yearling male lambs, one young bull and two rams are presented as burnt offerings. The lamb parts are also waved "before the Lord."

It is reiterated that when reaping, the edges of the fields and the gleanings are to be left in the fields for the poor and the aliens.

Leviticus 23:23 - 24:23 2005 April 27 for May 23^rd

Three more feasts are mentioned, a "Feast of Trumpets", a "Day of Atonement" and a "Feast of Tabernacles."

The Feast of Trumpets is a sacred day of rest "commemorated with trumpet blasts" in which an offering is made to God by fire. This is held on the first day of the seventh month.

The Day of Atonement is a day of rest and self-denial with a lengthy instruction not to do any work on the day, from evening on the ninth day of the seventh month until evening on the tenth day.

The Feast of Tabernacles lasts seven days from the fifteenth day of the seventh month. On the first day, people are to offer choice fruits from their trees and rejoice before God. The people (native born) will live in booths (temporary booths are implied) for the week as a reminder that the Israelites lived in booths when God brought them out of Egypt.

This is the first mention I recall of living in booths on the way out of Egypt.

The Israelites are to provide olive oil to run the lamps in the Tent of Meeting, which are to be tended by Aaron and lit every evening through morning. Also, some loaves of bread are to be baked and set on the golden table for each Sabbath. This is food for the priests.

At this point in the text, an actual enforcement action is recorded.

A man in the camp who was the son of an Israelite mother and Egyptian father got into a fight and in the process of fighting "blasphemed the name of the Lord with a curse." He was taken into custody pending a decision from God, as delivered by Moses.

The verdict was that he would be taken outside the camp and everyone who had heard the blasphemy would lay hands on him, then he was to be stoned to death.

Indeed, this was to be a general rule for all the population, native or alien, and at this point, some more rules are reiterated. Anyone taking a human life must be killed. Anyone taking the life of an animal must make restitution, "life for life," any injury must be exactly repaid, "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." These laws are for the native and the aliens also. Moses was a skillful and sensible administrator.

The blasphemer was taken outside the camp and stoned to death.

Leviticus 25 2005 April 28 for May 24^th

The land itself is supposed to have Sabbaths. The Israelites, when they have settled in the Promised Land, are to work their farm plots for six years, but leave them fallow in the seventh. They are to just eat whatever comes up voluntarily in the fallow fields during the years of rest.

After the seventh Sabbath year, the fiftieth year is the "year of Jubilee." In that year nearly everything goes back to the original owners and their families. If a person buys or sells property, or himself into slavery, the price is computed based on how much time is left until the next Jubilee, at which time the property reverts and the slaves go free. There are a few exceptions such as houses in walled cities, which, if not redeemed by the original owner (by right) in the first year after sale, become permanent property of the buyer. The Levites can always redeem their priestly houses anytime regardless of where they are located.

The Jubilee begins on the Day of Atonement and it is a second holiday year following the seventh Sabbath year. This means two years with no planting or harvesting. God directs that in the sixth year, the one prior to the Sabbath year, he will give a crop adequate to support them through the Sabbath year, the (eighth) Jubilee year and the ninth year when they will be planting again, until the harvest in that year.

When Israelites buy slaves from among Israelites, they must treat them like hired hands and free them and their families in the year of Jubilee. They are allowed to buy slaves from the neighboring countries and from aliens living among them and keep them as property, however. If an Israelite sells himself to a foreigner, a close relative has the option and the obligation to go redeem him. Any deal made with a foreigner has to allow for this possibility.

Israelites are not to charge each other interest on loans.

Such rules make sales into leases and all slavery from among fellow countrymen like year-to-year employment.

I wonder what would happen to our economy if we took the Bible seriously and ordered our property and our employment relationships according to these commands from God? Some consider the United States of America to be the modern day Promised Land in one form or another so, why not?

Leviticus 26 2005 April 29 for May 25^th

Now we come to the end, the carrot and the stick. The basic text is, 'follow these rules and be blessed, don't follow these rules and be cursed.'

The blessings for following the law are that the rain will come at the right time and the crops will grow, the people will have peace and live in safety, a handful will chase away many enemies (the ratios given are five to a hundred and a hundred to ten thousand), the population will increase, crops will be so plentiful that you'll have to move out last years to store this year's and God himself will live among the people. This is the God who broke Egypt and brought Israel out.

The curses for not following the law come in several phases, each one inflicted for not heeding the correction and turning back to the laws. First come disease, blindness and defeat by enemies. Next, the sky and the ground will be uncooperative for planting (similar to the original curse on Adam). Then, deserving of sevenfold afflictions in punishment for sin, wild animals will eat the children and cattle and deplete the population until the roads are empty. This will be followed by attacks from enemies and plagues when under siege in the cities. There will be so little food that ten women will share one oven and no one will be able to eat enough. This last image conjures in my mind an image of much of the Soviet Union of the twentieth century.

There is more. The next stages involves the people eating their own sons and daughters, God not accepting proper offerings, and destruction of idols and foreign temples. The land will then have the Sabbath years that the defiant people have skipped. For the few who are left, they will live and sleep in terror, running from rustling leaves, falling over each other while fleeing from nothing.

But, the people will not be totally destroyed, per the covenant that God made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. When a generation turns to humility and follows the laws and their sins are paid for, God will restore them to blessing.

The number of words spent on blessing is somewhat smaller than the number spent on curse.

"These are the decrees, the laws, and the regulations that the Lord established on Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses."

Leviticus 27 2005 May 3 for 26^th

In the final set of rules given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, a set of procedures and evaluations are given for vows, animals, people, or other property devoted to the Lord. It is not stated what this means, but by reading we surmise that people can either freely give things to God for some reason or that some things, like all firstborns, already belong to God, as we have seen in past regulations, and have to be dealt with accordingly.

The evaluations for people go like this:

Age Sex Shekels

20-60 M/F 50/30

5-20 M/F 20/10

0-5 M/F 5/3 * one month lower limit

60- M/F 15/10

These are "Sanctuary Shekels" paid to the priests, apparently the standard of currency.

Anything else vowed to God, like a house or an animal, even an unclean one, becomes holy. It can be bought back for 120% of its original value. If something, like a firstborn, belongs to God already and the owner makes a substitution, both the original and the substitute belong to God. This was clearly meant to discourage substitutions.

Land is evaluated by how much barley can be planted on it. Six bushels of seed (a "homer") worth of land is valued at 50 shekels. All such devotions are pro-rated to the year of Jubilee, when the land (or a house) reverts to the original owner, but there are certain types of sales that can result in permanent revocation of rights and, on the Jubilee, these go to God (that is, to the priests).

This is the way our own system works in some cases. If a person dies without heirs, his property can go to the state. In the culture of Leviticus, the priests and the priesthood functioned as the state. These Levites also provided for any medical needs that the people had.

We thus see the basis for much of our own system of society and laws in this work, although the evolution of both has gone considerable distance in the last several thousand years such that much of it is highly verbose and hardly recognizable today. These basic commands form our ideas of fairness and sensibility.

"No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death."

I don't know why this is here. It may be that "devoted to destruction" is legally equivalent to a vow.

Concluding thoughts on Leviticus 2005 May 3 for 27^th

This wasn't as bad as I had thought it would be. There is a lot of interesting information in Leviticus, though it seems a bit disorganized.

We have asked the question, "How is this relevant to us?" We are not nomadic desert shepherds traveling toward a Promised Land. It seems to us that it would be unreasonable to follow all of these directives literally and verbatim. It seems that some of the activities might even be illegal for us today, if not suspicious, irrelevant, or obsolete.

In the course of taking the Bible seriously, what do we do with such information, then? How can we implicitly think of something we take seriously as irrelevant or obsolete? We seem disinclined to take it all literally and it would be difficult and problematic to do so in any case. Do we take information such as this as instruction about the nature and approach of God? We find God here to be perfectly exacting and, although patient, hardly able to tolerate his imperfect creations in all of their rebellion and error. The consequences for disobeying God are at the least elaborate and expensive and at most deadly. Do we allegorize from this and ask God for modern equivalents?

If this is what we should do, literally or allegorically, it is not what we do.

Modern Christians teach and believe that all of these sacrifices are no longer necessary or appropriate, Christ himself having made one single sacrifice for all time, place, people, and peoples. This is dealt with at length in the writings of Paul that we will get to later, but Jesus himself said that not one pen stroke would pass away from the law before "all was fulfilled." We've puzzled this elsewhere and continue to do so. Does this mean that when we have mildew in our houses we have to move ourselves and all of our stuff out for seven days then have the preacher come over for an inspection? Does it mean that we have to tear the house down if it doesn't improve? Does it mean that there is still a ceremony for cleansing the house if it does improve, hopefully without the need to kill any birds?

If we get a rash, are we unclean and in need of inspection and cleansing?

Is it possible for a Christian today to be "unclean?"

Does it mean that a teenager who curses his parents should be put to death? Does it mean that we should not eat any pork products or that we should eat grasshoppers?

None of these have to do with the sacrifices for sin that Jesus has superseded, they are just directions for right living. In practice we, now, seem to ignore most of them, such as the ones I've excerpted above, at our social convenience while whole religious movements are built around others, such as the one sentence admonition for a man not to lie with another man as with a woman, though such acts are classified as "detestable", the same as eating pork.

My question therefore is, "On what basis do we choose to neglect all of these laws except for a few that we want to enforce on others?" We take the Bible seriously. We believe that every word of it is the inspired Word of God suitable for instruction and the building up of faith and so forth, yet we selectively ignore large portions of it. On what grounds? Tradition? Convenience? Social norms? Reason? Some brand of apologetics? Denominational preference? Historically contextual understandings? Well, why do any such reasons have supremacy over the Bible itself?

I have no plan to begin following all of these regulations to the letter myself. What does this mean about me, that I am unacceptable to God?

We have learned some things about the character of God here. If we had only Leviticus to study, we would conclude that God was very exacting, that he wants fellowship with the imperfect people but can barely stand to be around them. We would believe that burning animals were his food and that the process smelled nice to him. A religion based only on Leviticus could not exist in today's western world.

As a person looking for some things to do or be, simple or otherwise, to know that I am right with God, I am disillusioned. As a person wanting to get my religion straight, all I find here is hopelessness. As a person who wants to use the Bible to hammer other people whose habits I don't like, I don't find this material as compelling as others seem to.

We will have to continue through other parts of the Bible to find a God more like anything we have been taught as Christians.

© 2005, Courtney B. Duncan