Ship of Fools: Leviticus 21:21... No man that hath a blemish...

Thread: Leviticus 21:21... No man that hath a blemish... Board: Chapter & Worse / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=76;t=000010

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

Verse nominated by Ann

"No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God." (Leviticus 21:21, in context)

Ann comments: This one is a serious submission -- the intent is elaborated by verses 19 and 20, where it lists several of the "blemishes" that make one unfit to come near the bread of God, including a "crookback." Having scoliosis, it's always felt like a personal rejection to me. (Of course, being a woman, I guess this particular verse doesn't exempt me, since it's "no man" -- but there are plenty of other verses that exempt on gender grounds.)

How much of a problem is this verse? Click "Vote Now" to cast your vote!

[ 29. July 2009, 09:27: Message edited by: Simon ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I just hate religious purity laws. Get rid of them all!

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

OK, so on the Abram thread I talked about certain verses being problematic, but great thought provokers.

Nothing doing here. No redeeming value. Doesn't give me a good read on what God is like, but gives me the feeling that hanging out with priest who congratulated themselves on filling this criteria must have been a screaming bore. Backs up the Hollywood/ Silicon Valley bullshit that says how you are physically made defines your character and worth-- a total lie that needs no supporting.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Okay, before people start chomping on my toes, let me say that I don't care for this bit either. SO DON'T BLAME ME FOR IT.

Whew.

Now, as for why.

It is in effect an object lesson. (cue groans) That's right, one about perfection. In this case, physical perfection is standing in for moral perfection, aka holiness. The point, as far as I can make out, is to push the Israelites along the road of realizing how damn few people meet those standards, either physical or moral. (IIRC, zits also disqualified a priest--which would let out how much of the younger lot?)

Also, it's worth noting that people who were disqualified from service were NOT disqualified from the fruits of it, that is, drawing a temple salary (=right to eat the offerings and prob. have a share in any financial gifts distributed as well). They are specifically allowed this support in the Law, and no one is to take it from them. So God is not taking the teaching bit far enough to imperil people's livelihoods.

As for why teach this way in the first place, you have to remember what he's dealing with--a ragtag mob of ex-slaves with a totally-destroyed culture (with the exceptions of some bits of Egyptian idolatry, etc.). From this he has to create a whole new culture, worldview, unified nation, etc. Not an easy task. People attempting the same in modern times are having a darn hard time of it.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

I think it's John Ortberg in Everybody's Normal Until You Get To Know Them who says that all the purity laws can be summed up as 'No Oddballs Allowed' - and then Jesus came to show us that actually, we're all oddballs, which is why we need Jesus.

Not sure that makes up for all those hours with the zit cream, though ...!

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
...all the purity laws can be summed up as 'No Oddballs Allowed' - and then Jesus came to show us that actually, we're all oddballs, which is why we need Jesus.

AMEN!

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

At the very least, it sets up the prophetic tradition, in which Jesus stood firmly, to be able to give us precedent for the fact that the worshiping community can, when necessary, modify its own rules.

[/channeling Hooker]

Posted by Keren-Happuch (# 9818) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
I think it's John Ortberg in Everybody's Normal Until You Get To Know Them who says that all the purity laws can be summed up as 'No Oddballs Allowed' - and then Jesus came to show us that actually, we're all oddballs, which is why we need Jesus.

Not sure that makes up for all those hours with the zit cream, though ...!

Sounds like Philip Yancey in What's So Amazing About Grace?. I haven't read the other book but I do know the quote!

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

It struck me that the other creture which had to be without spot was the Passover sacrificial lamb. Was there a subtext to the priest's duties?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Yes, certainly. You may remember that the Levites (of which the priests were a subset) were originally given over to God (dedicated, set aside, hallowed, made an offering of) in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel at the time of the Exodus. In other words, they served as substitutes for all the kids/adults who would have perished during the tenth plague if God had not "passed them over." In fact, I believe there were 273 Israelite firstborns too many when they ran the census, so those people had to pay a kind of redemption tax.

Now of course on the night of the Exodus, it was the Passover lamb that lost its life in the place of the firstborn Israelites. So you have a kind of equivalency thing going, with

slain lamb = firstborn Israelite = living and wholly dedicated priest/Levite.

And the whole lot of them serving as symbols of Jesus Christ, who is himself the Lamb who was slain, our ever-living Priest, and the greatest of the sons of Israel.

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

Can we vote to excise the whole of Leviticus? :/

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

No excising. This is nothing more than a command that the sacrificial system should be run by the best and the brightest of the Levites.

There are lots of churches out there that are run by the "blemished", and that perpetuates a serious stereotype: that Christianity is only for life's incompetent losers...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm comfortable with that! [Devil]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I think there are similar restrictions on the succession of (not priests, but) ancient kings in various cultures: the heir must be physically perfect. I seem to recall some Germanic tribe that could not accept their young prince because he had lost a finger.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
No excising. This is nothing more than a command that the sacrificial system should be run by the best and the brightest of the Levites.

There are lots of churches out there that are run by the "blemished", and that perpetuates a serious stereotype: that Christianity is only for life's incompetent losers...

I think you have a point here; some places I have been to is said to be 'open for everyone.' But the atmosphere there - and the comments from some of the people there - seemed to say: 'all is welcome except those evil, selfish rich people.'

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
There are lots of churches out there that are run by the "blemished", and that perpetuates a serious stereotype: that Christianity is only for life's incompetent losers...

Great point! Not too big a jump from that to saying that churches are run by people who are suspect in general. Not actually people who are respected and admired.

The true meaning though, I think, is the simple truth that society is better off when composed of people who are are moral and kind, and worse off when it is full of people who are immoral and mean-spirited. Freely chosen evil is the only true "blemish".

Posted by Stowaway John (# 15469) on :

Originally posted by Jacobsen

quote:
It struck me that the other creature which had to be without spot was the Passover sacrificial lamb. Was there a subtext to the priest's duties?

Paul says the whole of the Law was a shadow of the reality that was to come in the messiah, so yeah a subtext to the spotless lamb throughout.;. Guess all the fuss over purity was to underline a thousand times over... you need help... everyone of you has the sin gene... creating a sense of need and anticipation. Without the severity of the law there could not have been grace.

Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :

Some of Torah is applicable to the whole of humanity (including Gentile converts to Christianity), other parts are only applicable to observant Jews. That was the point made at the First Council of Jerusalem.

This little gem is specific to the Aaronic priesthood, serving in the Tabernacle, and later, the Temple. The Temple is no more, and the Aaronic priesthood is dispersed. A lot of the Torah laws have lapsed because there is no Temple.

It isn't relevant to Christianity. Before the crucifixion, the High Priest renounced God by saying, "We have no king but Caesar," or whatever he actually said. The High Priesthood fell on Jesus, who is God, and who is unblemished in every way. So, those in Holy Orders who have scoliosis, or a bad case of acne, don't have to worry about this one.

There are lots of other things to worry about, though.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0